Posted on 02/28/2015 12:17:20 PM PST by RnMomof7
And making the leadership in the Catholic Church that wouldn't even qualify as "elders" in the New Testament ekklesia per Paul.
I will ask you, where do the Scriptures teach it is a sin to drink the blood of Christ?
Christ commands us to do it.
We sin but not doing it or by claiming it is a sin to drink His blood.
No He doesn’t.
He says Himself that the cup is the fruit of the vine.
Jesus blood was for atonement, not consumption.
It was to be poured out for our sins.
Scripture does not distinguish when it says *blood*. Only those who wish to disobey God and follow the teachings of the RCC will make that distinction, and most Catholics do.
Obeying the clear commands of Jesus seems to be a real stumbling block for Catholics
hmm, let’s see who has a problem obeying this clear command:
“drink of it all of you, FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD of the covenant”
Christians have had no problem for 2,000 years obeying Christ.
those following the 16th century tradition of men, different story.
for this is my blood........
for this is my blood........
for this is my blood........
the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?
and from blood. NO exceptions.
Of course not...There were no Catholics back then...
The Roman Catholic Church was a part of the Orthodox Church, believing and teaching the same doctrines and Sacred Tradition, until 1054. It was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Orthodox Church. In that year the Patriarch of Rome, or the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope of Rome broke away from the original Church by making unacceptable claims of authority over the entire Christian Church. Since then, the Roman Catholic Church has added new teachings, which the ancient Christian Church above rejects. One of these is the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Not only this doctrine but also other matters of the faith have developed within the Roman Catholic Church which has since has separated both these Churches.
Don't you think it's a little queer that the Orthodox claim the authority for being the first, real church as well as your religion???
Since history shows that your religion didn't have a pope until at least the 6th Century, it's clear that the Orthodox were the originators of your dual religion...So Justin Martyr may have called himself Orthodox but certainly not Catholic...
Besides, the catholic religion is referenced as the universal religion while the (C)atholic (C)urch is an institution...
all Christians already knew when the book of Acts was written that Jesus COMMANDED us to eat his body and drink his blood.
this only became an issue in the 16th century.
read ALL the Bible, not picking a verse out of context.
what does the Orthodox Church teach about the cup of blessing and drinking the blood of Christ???
again, anyone following the Apostolic Faith as the Orthodox do in this regard, as opposed to the novelty taught first in the 16th century, drink the blood of Christ.
And to return to the point that brought me to this thread (post 25), writing in the early 100’s, Justin Martyr had no hesitance in declaring the consumption of the Blood of Christ in the services of the ancient church.
Where is there ANY disputation of this until the 16th century?
But what IS the church Justin Martyr speaks of???
Most of his works are lost, but two apologies and a dialogue did survive. The First Apology, his most well known text, passionately defends the morality of the Christian life, and provides various ethical and philosophical arguments to convince the Roman emperor, Antoninus, to abandon the persecution of the fledgling sect.
Further, he also makes the theologically-innovative suggestion that the "seeds of Christianity" (manifestations of the Logos acting in history) actually predated Christ's incarnation. This notion allows him to claim many historical Greek philosophers (including Socrates and Plato), in whose works he was well studied, as unknowing Christians.
That makes sense since your religion is built almost exclusively on human philosophy and not actual scripture...
one more and then I am done.
1 Corinthians 11:25
in the same way also the cup, after dinner, saying “this cup is the new covenant IN MY BLOOD. do this, AS OFTEN AS YOU DRINK IT, in remembrance of me”
The covenant was IN HIS BLOOD. The cup wasn't His blood. The cup contained "the fruit of the vine" as a REMEMBRANCE of His shed blood.
And it was still a sin for Jesus and the apostles to eat blood.
From the same wiki that you linked, comes more that illuminates his actual belief.
Justin had, like others, the idea that the Greek philosophers had derived, if not borrowed, the most essential elements of truth found in their teaching from the Old Testament. But at the same time he adopted the Stoic doctrine of the “seminal word,” and so philosophy was to him an operation of the Word—in fact, through his identification of the Word with Christ, it was brought into immediate connection with him.[28]
Thus he does not scruple to declare that Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians (Apol., i. 46, ii. 10). His aim, of course, is to emphasize the absolute significance of Christ, so that all that ever existed of virtue and truth may be referred to him. The old philosophers and law-givers had only a part of the Logos, while the whole appears in Christ.[28]
**Worship is not intended for converting souls. Worship is focused on God, not man.**
The thread is titled “Getting Back to the Ancient Church”. You can’t get any more ancient than Acts chapter 2; which starts with souls in one accord, worshipping God in verse one (I don’t think they were in one accord about something secular), and then in verse two thru four, the Holy Ghost is poured out.
The next nine verses show the excitement of the event.
The next twenty-three verses show peter testifting of what has just happened, and why; preaching Jesus Christ’s witness of words and deeds, and death, burial, and resurrection.
The next verse shows the listeners responding, saying, “Men and brethern, what shall we do?”
Then Acts 2:38,39: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
Now, very likely in the span of verses 2 thru 39, less than an hour has elapsed since the Spirit was first poured out.
Skipping out on the beginning is what is wrong with so many church organizations today. They have a foundation that is missing pieces.
Acts wasn’t a worship service. They were just gathered together. They went outside and were confronted about their behavior.
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.