hi incrist101… i saw in another post you stated your group celebrates The Lord’s Supper. and we have the simular beliefs regarding Jesus’s precence in the form of bread and wine.so that brings a question from me… say one comes to your church to worship with you all,this person does not believe that Christ is present in the bread offered to him at the Lord’s supper.when this person eats this bread, is Christ still present to them?
Jesus told us this is my body and blood. So if one participates in communion then doesn’t that mean Jesus body and blood are the bread and wine? I can’t speak for what Jesus would do with someone who receives it and doesn’t believe in his real physical presence. I know plenty of Catholics who participate in communion that don’t subscribe to transubstatiation. Does that mean Jesus is not physically present for them either? How about the Catholics that go to service maybe twice a year out of obligation for Christmas and Easter. They probably don’t remember what they were taught. Is Jesus present for them as well?? The bottom line is Jesus is present so you better be ready for it. This is why we tell people to examine themselves just as Paul told the Corinthains who were badly abusing the Lord’s supper. Let me ask you this. If a non-believer attends service for the very first time and receives communion is Jesus present or not?
I don’t think it matters what we believe, I think it’s what Jesus declares. If you eat that bread and drink the wine be ready for Jesus.
…in another post you indicated James made the decision not to burden the Gentiles with circumcism…no James stated we should send them written instructions regarding other practices.going by what was written in my bible James made no decsion regarding circumcism.till next time eh.
Boy you missed that one big time. James didn’t have to rule on circumcision because the Gentiles were not practicing it. The decision was do we tell them yes they have to or do we leave it alone. If the letter would have stated you gentiles don’t have to get circumcised, they would have said we already know that. As Peter so eloquently said:
So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers** with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? 11We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.”
Oh Peter I do Love you so much. I really do.
To which James responds:
19 “And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. (Meaning let’s not force circumcision) 20 Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. 21 For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.”
James wasn’t ruling on just circumcision. It was what do we tell the Gentiles in case they have contact with Jews. This became a common problem back then because the Gentiles represented a new wrinkle for them as evidenced by Peter’s difficult encounter. Getting a letter to them was to help prevent Jews from falsely teaching them.
The delivery of the letter was then determined by a council made up of Apostles and Elders.
The gentlemen in the other post made the point that no one had ever challenged the authority of Peter. I simply commented on Paul’s public rebuke of Peter and his handling of this encounter with Gentiles. Read Galatians to see Pauls comments.
Would any Bishop or Cardinal even attempt to publicly rebuke the Pope today? I say no because he probably would be cast out as a heretic.
PEACE and GOD Bless.**
