Posted on 06/19/2007 7:39:44 AM PDT by Reaganesque
That's right, the Egyptian child would have been saved.
"but the BELIEVERS from the UN-believers."
Okay, I see your point and you're right.
1 Corinthians 11:23-3023 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
We all know that chapters and verses did NOT appear in the Book until somewhere around 1200 AD.
Therefore, the text flows like this...
...
31. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
1 Corinthians 121. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9. To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10. To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11. But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14. For the body is not one member, but many.
15. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16. And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17. If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18. But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19. And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20. But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23. And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30. Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31. But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
Now the question I ask is this:
Have we correctly discerned Christ's 'body'???
Therefore, the 'blood' did NOT 'distinguish between the Egyptians and the Hebrews', but the BELIEVERS from the UN-believers.That doesn't follow. What the blood distinguished between or among were the observant and the non-observant--those who observed the mitzvah of the blood and those who did not, and there can be many reasons why a man e.g. keeps his head covered or wears his tzitzit (other mitzvot) that have nothing to do with belief. Remember what the Jews told Hashem at Sinai: we will do and [then] we will hear. In other words, we try to observe the mitzvot; we expect the understanding of them to follow. And if it doesn't, well, that's OK too.
How did a yearly ritual meal of rememberence, Passover, morph into the pale representation that we do today?
No WONDER there is so much conversy about it!
Even in Corinthians it was still a MEAL!
Even in Corinthians it was still a MEAL!I don't get the wine and wafer thing either. You go to any shul for Shabbat services and afterwards you are going to eat a meal (I don't know about Reformed Shuls). Even if you have to leave you stay for the Kiddish. You pray, you eat. You study Torah, you eat (preferably something sweet, because Torah is sweet). You celebrate, you eat. Every Shabbat at candle lighting time--like tonight, I can hardly wait!--you bless REAL wine that you actually drink, and after you wash you bless REAL bread that is actually tasty, and then you eat yourself into a state of total bliss because Hashem commanded it.
Works for me!
we both are.... ;^)
“Not only was I on that thread, you being from Canada might recall that I shared an anecdotal story about the fine young man from Canada who came as a missionary to my home in Alabama, and I mentioned that his father had something to do with the development of the Vermeer hay baling system so it was apparent that devotion to his religion superceded the wealth of his family.”
I don’t recall that story at all. It’s possible that we might be talking about different threads on the same event.
Bottom line is that at least some anti-Mormons just couldn’t contain themselves and acted rather like Pastor Fred Phelps at a gay funeral. I saw it, and non-LDS posters had the same reaction to it that I did. If you want to fineness the definition of ‘dancing on the grave’ to exclude that kind of behavior I can’t stop you, but don’t call me a liar for not seeing things your way.
I have no complaint against people who disagree with my theology when they discuss our differences in good faith, give honest consideration to what we say, and who hold accuracy important enough apply some kind of scholarly standard to the sources they use rather than just cherry pick what supports their view and ignore anything that doesn’t fit with the conclusion they want. I honestly don’t see that a lot here and I think you would have a hard time finding a long-time Mormon poster here who disagree with me on that point.
You can choose to rail against me for saying it, or you can choose to consider that there might be at least some truth to it and ask yourself what you can do to improve things. I don’t think there will be very much meaningful dialog between us as things stand now.
“Grig, I was on that thread, and was accused of “dancing.””
I thought it was pulled, not just locked, but since you it is still out there I was able to find it.
I don’t have time to read the whole thread but I can see you came to it after I left it. I’ll take your word for it about your conduct there, but you can see on the first page there are several comments that have been removed by the moderator, and others who are rather shocked and disgusted with the behavior of some other posters. Those removed comments are likely the ones that would best validate my claim, but even in it’s edited form it shows I didn’t make the thing up.
“I wonder if it was posted as “bait.””
I don’t recall gregwest being an LDS Freeper. Even if he was, so what, it was a valid news story. If someone feels the story baited them into doing something wrong, I think they should look at why they felt attracted to behaving like that, and why they gave into those feelings.
How about posting a link to the article.
~”So if you have the knowledge, how do I entangle two wave packets?”~
I was referring to the gaining of the knowledge of the truth of the principle in which I originally have faith.
For example, I live the Law of Tithing. I started doing so as an exercise in faith - I may have been told of the spiritual benefits of doing so, but I didn’t know if they actually happened.
After living the Law, I came to understand the reasons behind it. Knowledge of the principle followed faith in it.
Apply the same process to any true principle, and you have a framework for knowledge.
The scientific community engages in the same practice. They postulate a theory, act on faith that the theory is correct by conducting experiments, and thereby begin to build knowledge to validate or invalidate that faith.
“Is there a Mormon here, now, possessed of sufficient character, learning, and resolve, to debate with integrity the issues opened up on this thread?”
This is the first thread on which you and I have crossed paths; but this is exactly what I try to do (though I frequently fall short). Others who have been involved in this thread can attest to that.
Next time such a situation comes up, feel free to ping me.
“I was simply responding to the posts before me, from the usual suspects. I was not ridiculing or demeaning your beliefs, simply pointing out the obvious — you are a hate filled person, who is deliberately as insulting to Mormons as you know how to be.”
Your self esteem must really be low for you to address yourself like that.
I think you have it wrong :) They test the hypothesis to try and disprove it. Only after everyone has given up trying to disprove it does it become a theory, but even then it is suspect.
For example F=MA was a pretty good theory but some scientists came along with two better theories, E=MCsquared and MW=EW which are not compatible. Scientists don't use faith they use skepticism, only after something is demonstrated time after time do they place any 'faith' in it.
In the real world knowledge and proof come first. Faith comes later when you actually have to apply the Theories :)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1550903/posts
The worst posts have been removed by the mods.
You don’t think scientists use faith? They do so all the time. For a long time, F=MA was taken as fact, because it seemed to work on everything it was tried. Indeed, we still use it on a very widespread basis, -believing- it will accurately model the macro world around us, and having -faith- that it won’t somehow be messed up by the weirdness of the quantum physics that impact all the particles of which the macro world is made.
Scientists place faith in their theories until the theories are disproven. Usually, it doesn’t take long. Sometimes (e.g. “the earth is flat”) it takes a while.
Perhaps we are simply quibbling over semantics as to the meaning of the word “faith?” I am using it in the sense that it is the principle we apply when we choose to act despite uncertainty. By that definition, we all utilize faith constantly.
I can buy that definition : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.