Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
And yet no one rushed to bite Him.
That would have been bad.
It’s not recorded, but Nathaniel said to Philip: “What heavenly thing is He saying”? Philip replied: “Be patient, Nat, the Lord will explain in His time.”
And accordingly, the Lord did explain. At the Seder meal.
Putting this aside, I still believe that the four chief ordinances for the New Testament local assemblies are those that I gave you. Unhappily, the Baptist distinctives only count two indispensible ordinances about which there is no need for discussion: baptism (immersion) of the professing "believer" and The Lord's Supper.
On another tack, I was not familiar with "In Thy Word" operation. Who are they, and how long have they been in business?
Amen and amen.
All very probable in their thinking. But it is also tru that they were exhibiting the same mistake in perspective that Jesus corrected in Nicodemus, that of thinking there is something, some work that they could do to earn eternal life. I believe He sprinkled sarcasm into His responses in order to trap them in their own error just as He trapped Nicodemus in his. with Nicodemus, probably because his ehart was sincerely seeking the Truth, the trap awakened in Nicodemus a new perspective. we know it had some effect because it was Nic who provided the cash to purchase the spices and ointments for treating the body of Jesus, items which the women were approaching the tomb with on resurrection morning.
This approach doesn't quite seem to match up with Scripture. Take look at 1 Cor. 12, from which verses 12, 13, and 14 contradict your hypothesis:
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.
The whole chapter follows in the same vein, and quite firmly.
If this doesn't make sense to you, there's not much value in further debating the point of trying to practice the rite of communion apart from the other communicants, is there?
Well he's really there...ohhhh wait he really isn't there .. its an accident not truly really.. but sort kinda ... not physically.. but not spiritually either ...just sort like a cloud that leaves when you put the cracker in your mouth..
LOL...So was Thomas infallible.. or was this his own personal opinion??
What makes his words more correct than say Luther? or Calvin? Or Arminius ? or mine?
Yeah, this passage is very thought-provoking. A little leaven of crass selfishness in the hearts of some of the outspoken of the crowd makes it a little more earthy. I surely pay close attention to exactly how Jesus initiated and responded with elegant, precise grammar.
It is a curious and astonishing thing that when one starts witht he premise that the Bible is true but we mortals are not yet able to know all the vagaries of how it is ALL true simply reading the texts and studying the connections yields insights to the Deep Truths therein. One of the most fundamental axioms with such a student is, God will not contradict Himself, so when we discover what appears to be a contradiction, there must be a deeper meaning we are missing that dissolves the seeming duplicity.
To hold true the catholic assertion that Jesus commanded his followers to eat the real and substantially present flesh and blood and soul and divinity means to ignore all the other passages of the Bible which make this claim of catholcism reveal duplicity in God. God is not double minded, so there is some other way to understand this seeming contradiction which one must dig out by studying 'the rest of the story'.
If you post record of eaucharist miracles supposedly proving the transubstantiation, then you are at once affirming your pagan belief that the real body of Jesus is consumed at the catholic altar. That is cannibalism, a central spiritual belief of pagan rites.
A part of the "this" in "this do in remembrance of Me" is replicating the context of the full invitation to the Lord's Table of the rest of complement of the local Body. Neglecting that invitation, it is partial and exclusive. You might want to work this out before proceeding.
"So how can He give His flesh for the life of the world if the flesh profits nothing?" rwa265
The text in Greek clearly shows that to consume the flesh will profit nothing. So, the life of God is not going to get into the consumer vai the mouth. The Life of God comes into the human spirit AFTER it is cleansed of ALL unrighteousness. That coming in of the Holy Spirit is graphically illustrated at Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius. So, in answer to your question, The Flesh of Jesus was sacrificed upon the Cross, by Him, willingly giving Himself up to take the penalty fro sin. That act of sacrifice becomes your personal moment for salvation from your sins when you have a repentant heart and an accepting humility to believe He did that act for you.
When you take the bread and wine as a Remembrance, the Way Jesus instructed it be accepted, you testify tot he world and to God that you are numbered with Him in that cross death. You eat the bread making a spiritual connection to His sacrifice, not yours. You accept His atonement death for you. You are not accepting His flesh into you, you are acknowledging that He did this paying the penalty specifically for you.
The cup of wine when accepted is affirming your belief that His blood was shed for the remission of your sin nature. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. This astonishing Divine act is accomplished only by God as The Great High Priest entering into the Holy of Holies to cover the Mercy Seat with the perfect sinless blood of the Christ, The Son of the Living God, so that when 'an accuser' makes accusation that you have broken a law of Moses God will see the atonement made by Jesus, not your sin transgression. This atonement is not something you can drink in a cup. Jesus called the cup contents wine. Believe Him. He also taught that His giving of Himself was so that You and I can have His life n us, in the now, not after some trail of striving to obtain eternal life.
You are not infallible. But you are probably the world’s foremost authority on what you had as your first meal of the day yesterday.
If someone, say MHGinTN, were to say that you might think you had THIS, but in fact you had THAT, I would still go to you rather than another, without my thinking that you were infallible, to find out what you had.
So, both the writer of the article you posted and other on this thread claim that the dogma concerning the Eucharist states that receiving the Eucharist is necessary to Salvation.
Whether Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or you are more correct about the Eucharist than Thomas is not the question I have addressed since I came onto this thread. I did not cite Thomas to argue for the truth of his teaching. I referred to him to clarify what his teaching is.
Suppose I were to say that Reform theology teaches justification by works. Suppose you quoted Calvin to show it teaches no such thing. In your opinion would it make sense or even be relevant to ask whether Calvin was infallible or more reliable than Luther, Aquinas, Arminius, or me?
το πνευμα εστιν το ζωοποιουν η σαρξ ουκ ωφελει ουδεν τα ρηματα α εγω λαλω υμιν πνευμα εστιν και ζωη εστιν
Ping to above
Hardly, you just bypassed the main point and elevated the time delay to be the content of the assertion ... but the main point remains and you have yet to provide a cogent explanation for the omission in John 13-17.
Its ok ... I didn't expect one.
Consectatio est opus per alius nomen
That’s as may be. But it’s another topic.
Must we be bush-league? How is the Greek any clearer than the English? You said it was clear in the Greek.
Must we be bush-league? How is the Greek any clearer than the English? You said it was clear in the Greek.
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.