Jim Lincoln wrote: ... Any government that says anything different is wrong.
So, you are saying the current occupant of the White House and his polices are wrong and should not be supported? Are you saying that we should vote for people for office who oppose gay marriage and vote out those who do? Just wondering
s c wrote: Knowledge of how they partook of the Lord's Supper helps...
Still at a loss here, just trying to be on same page.
I Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper
(then he speaks of the agape feast you referenced, but Paul is clearly speaking of the way after the resurrection believer's practiced the Lord's Supper)
(v23-26) 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
The apostle Paul referenced the supper found in the gospels as the pattern for communion. You seem to be saying, no that was a Jewish custom or holiday not to be emulated. So, who is right, you or the apostle Paul?
s c wrote: Instead of celebrating communion by partaking of wine, juice or bread/crackers which are symbolic and being unsure of which best represents it and to hat frequency, why don't Christians understand that every time we come together to meet and to glorify God, that we are celebrating communion in that we partake of Him (His Word) as in He is the Bread of Life and His Spirit (the new wine)?
How does that line up with I Corinthians 11:20-34, Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-39 and John 13:1-17:26?
Jim Lincoln wrote: ....In so far as prayer is concerned, the school is not a religious or home setting so perhaps, Matthew 6:6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.---...
So, when Jesus made the crowds of 5,000 and 4,000 to sit down for food, He should not have offered a prayer of thanksgiving, like this child was trying to do, because it was not a religious or home setting?
I'm very much aware that their jesus is not the Lord Jesus Christ of Scripture so much so that my stands against these things in my family (transubstantiation in particular) has cost me their wrath, even to denying me those things that sustain life, if the Lord had not been pleased to deliver me, and I trust he will continue to deliver me. They have escalated in recent days on another front hoping to get support for me from outside the family, against my conscience. Will I buckle in my understanding of the Truth?, not if He sustains me. I face another questioner on Friday.
You did not however answer my question which was: Do they actually deny his humanity? Think about it.
Does the Church of Rome believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly man? If the Eternal Son of God was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary and was born of her, yet without sin, then why do they teach that Mary herself was immaculately conceived? Why would that be necessary to establish the humanity of Christ? Does it in fact do the very opposite?
Neil wrote: A surprising but fair question. See Prov. 11:13, 20:19. Secrecy implies privacy.
Thank you. Those are good references.
I generally agree that employers know far too much about their employees, though if I were to work for a Christian employer, I suppose I wouldn't mind so much. As it is, for now I work for one of the companies on this list.
It seems to me that these big companies have all been co-opted by the same means that the same people used to take over nearly all the colleges and universities. First, they protested to get media coverage; next, the colleges / companies permit a token representative of the aggrieved group into some position; then that person gets more on board with them; then they move up through the ranks till they get a toehold in the board room; then it's all over. Once a small percentage of the colleges / companies has been taken over, the rest fall through media pressure.
We're now at the stage where the 'minority' parties have become the majority in power, and the actual majority is being squeezed out by the less numerous but more powerful activists. Next comes the (actual, real, physical) persecution of those who disagree, I think.
DJC49 wrote: A] Refer to 1Cor 7:15 Your friend was abandoned. She's not "bound." B] Uh ... hem, haw ... when was divorce an issue in the counseling?
A) She re-married a man who had never been married. He was denied leadership in a church because of his wife's former marriage. Sad, because they are mature Christians.
B) I really didn't want to know the details of this situation. Our pastor told us what I posted, and that is all I know. His point was that lives are messy, and solutions to problems are not as simple as we would want them to be, even when using Scripture as our directive. Afterthought: the couple had become Christians and wanted to know what to do about their relationship. I guess divorce was a considered option.
itsaboutheremnant wrote: Yes DJC quite right it is ok to marry again if you are widowed but not OK to kill your spouse to obtaing the satus of widower not to remarry after divorce
Hahaha. . I had thought that thought when reading an earlier post. . .
Ok, here's a true story. A friend, 21 yrs. old at the time, husband left her, she waits, he marries another. She's a Christian, is she to continue waiting? Is she to live the rest of her life single? Is she free to re-marry based on scripture?
And, for a thornier issue. . .true story. A pastor had a couple in his church who came to him for counseling. They had been married for years; however, the wife had been a man before he became a woman and the wife in the relationship. How's that for a sticky situation. Do they divorce? What do they do? I'm glad I don't have to deal with that, but some pastor may have to.
Neil wrote: Q: "Wonder why, it only says 'wife' and not 'husband'?" A: If you're referring to Rom. 7:1-3 or 1 Cor 7:39, consider that the marriage bond is bilateral (1 Cor. 7:2-4) & penalties for breaking it apply to both sexes (Lev. 20:10), so there is no need for Paul to be pedantic there & describe the case for the opposite sex - it is implied.
What you say is true, but I wonder if the deeper meaning is that the "wife" as in O.T. and representative of the positional relationship of Israel with God, and the "bride" or "wife" in the N.T., as representative of the Church and the positional relationship to Christ, is the greater meaning of the illustration. In almost every other directive in Scripture, it is given to the male, but, in this case, to the woman, or more correctly, the wife.
Given that God, Himself, could never be unfaithful, and divorce Himself of His elect; however, the "wife" or "Israel" of the O.T. was terribly unfaithful, and the "wife" or "Church" of the N.T. was/has been/is unfaithful as a body as described in Revelation. Just wondering.
DJC49 wrote: Check: 1Cor 7:8,9,39,40. Remarriage upon the death of a spouse is sanctioned.
So, what provision is made for the person who is remarried, but not as a widow? Does this affect that person's eternal destiny? Just a second look at those verses draws my attention to the mention of the "wife" being bound by law as long as her husband lives. Wonder why, it only says "wife" and not "husband"?
I know this is slightly off the subject, but I know there will be catholics on this site that will comment on this story. Below is a site that shows the different prayers to Mary. Do any of you catholics agree with praying these prayers to Mary? http://www.jorieken.nl/Marypages/PrayerstoMary.htm