When is a christian NOT a Christian?

[epostle]

And that has nothing to do with the "blood" that the Apostles said Christians should not consume when they wrote this:

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The Council of Florence said Christians didn't have to abstain from the blood of animals, writing:

It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs.

You are blending pagan worship with the mere eating of meat. They are two different things. Enjoying a rare steak has nothing to do with pagan worship. The culture had changed, making the prohibition redundant. The practice of sacrificing animals to false gods eventually died out in the entire known world. Scripture does not say when this ruling was rescinded, that occurred later, but that is a problem for sola scripturists.

It was disciplinary and not doctrinal in the first place. Disciplines can change, doctrines cannot change. (i.e. prohibiting sexual immorality is doctrinal and cannot change) Florence simply formalized what had been understood for centuries.

It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs.

You are refuting yourself.

 

[Giuliano]

You are blending pagan worship with the mere eating of meat. They are two different things. Enjoying a rare steak has nothing to do with pagan worship. The culture had changed, making the prohibition redundant. It was disciplinary and not doctrinal in the first place. Florence simply formalized what had been understood for centuries.

Are you serious or joking around? I was talking about blood, not meat. Both quotes I gave had to do with blood.

You are refuting yourself.

I would say the Council of Florence were trying to refute what the Apostles said at the Council of Jerusalem Can you deal with that?

 

[aspen]

Are you serious or joking around? I was talking about blood, not meat. Both quotes I gave had to do with blood. I would say the Council of Florence were trying to refute what the Apostles said at the Council of Jerusalem Can you deal with that?

Well you can believe what you want to believe I guess

 

[Giuliano]

Well you can believe what you want to believe I guess

It's not a matter of what I want to believe -- I'll wait for more evidence before forming an opinion.

 

[Marymog]

It's obvious they weren't passed down properly even in the first four hundred years when consecrated Bishops could disagree with each other so much. If they all had teachings passed to them, they received different teachings.

HI,

I agree with you that it is "obvious they weren't passed down properly". Scripture said it was going to happen: For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths. The "sound doctrine" of Scripture taught by men is still alive and well. If you don't believe it is still being taught then that means that Satan has won and Christianity is not built on a rock like Jesus said (Matthew 16:18). I believe Scripture and it says that The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If you follow the doctrine of The Church instead of men then your ears won't be "itching".

Have you ever participated in a test where 10 people get in a line and whisper in each others ear a phrase and by the time the phrase got down to the tenth person it was not the same phrase as what the first person spoke? Or rumors about you that are passed around to friends, family co-workers etc.? The rumor gets back to you and your like....Ummmmm...that rumor is not true....Here is the truth.....

It is the same with the teaching of those "consecrated Bishops". They were taught/told the Truth and that truth was written down by students of the Apostles (Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius). Historically we know that those men had students that they taught such as Irenaeus (student of Polycarp) however that truth was misconstrued over time. That is why Christianity needs to get back to it's roots and hold up to the teachings of those men. We can clearly see that the teaching of those men are NOT being held up today.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Who today believes the decisions reached by the Council of Jerusalem are binding? I do. The Catholic Church does not. They believed they had the authority to undo what the Apostles said at that council. I'm pressed for time; but I can go into it in detail later if you like.

Yes.....details of your accusation that the CC undid what the Apostles said at the Council of Jerusalem would be interesting....I look forward to it.

 

[Marymog]

Where in any of those references does it suggest that selling all your possessions was compulsory? Do you own your own house? Are those recommendations to give to the poor (which no Christian objects to) that you seem to believe a church led legislative imperative, apply to you?

Acts: they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

Hebrews: share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

Luke: “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.”

1John: How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?

If you knew scripture and your own Christian history you would know the answer to your own question. Acts chapter 4 (and other historical writings) gives the description of the early church in Jerusalem which was filled with a group of believers soooooo filled with the Holy Spirit that they were of one heart and one mind (just like scripture says we should be). The NT Christians held all their possessions loosely and shared them with one another. The NT Christians would sell their possessions, shared what they had because they were taught by the leaders of The Church they MUST share with anyone. Those sacrifices are pleasing to God and those kind acts shows how God's love abide's in us.

Sooo you can pretend that the doctrine of The Church to at the time was not compulsory. Ananias and Sapphira pretended the same thing and look what happened to them.

Yes, I own my own home. I contribute time and money to the needy. The Church does not require me to sell my home and I have not lied to God or The Church about my possession's soooo I have no fear of being struck dead.

Hope you and @"ByGrace" (who liked your condescending post #591) enjoyed the bible lesson......Bible Study Mary

 

[Marymog]

You really shouldn't quote scripture... Is like a hammer in the hands of a child. You use it as a club, but have no idea of its true purpose. BoL is the same.

I apologize for quoting scripture that destroyed your theory. It is tough when a woman, who is not allowed to preach to men (1 Timothy 2:12), schools you in Scripture but we women sometimes know Scripture better than you men. Like compassion and what we MUST do (Luke 3:11)

I know your pride will not allow you to acknowledge that Scripture destroys your theory soooo I digress.

 

[Giuliano]

HI,

I agree with you that it is "obvious they weren't passed down properly". Scripture said it was going to happen: For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths. The "sound doctrine" of Scripture taught by men is still alive and well. If you don't believe it is still being taught then that means that Satan has won and Christianity is not built on a rock like Jesus said (Matthew 16:18). I believe Scripture and it says that The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If you follow the doctrine of The Church instead of men then your ears won't be "itching".

Have you ever participated in a test where 10 people get in a line and whisper in each others ear a phrase and by the time the phrase got down to the tenth person it was not the same phrase as what the first person spoke? Or rumors about you that are passed around to friends, family co-workers etc.? The rumor gets back to you and your like....Ummmmm...that rumor is not true....Here is the truth.....

It is the same with the teaching of those "consecrated Bishops". They were taught/told the Truth and that truth was written down by students of the Apostles (Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius). Historically we know that those men had students that they taught such as Irenaeus (student of Polycarp) however that truth was misconstrued over time. That is why Christianity needs to get back to it's roots and hold up to the teachings of those men. We can clearly see that the teaching of those men are NOT being held up today.

Mary

You know, how rumors spread does tell us something, doesn't it? If someone comes and tells me so-and-so said something about you, I don't get bothered. I wait until I meet that person and talk to him so I can ask him what he said. If he did say something bad, odds are he'll act guilty. Most of the time though, it got warped and we both get a laugh out of it.

If we read the various authors, we see how their language changed over time. Words matter since different words usually mean different things.

We have Bibles today; but we can still the same principle at work when some people try to quote something and alter it. If someone reads the Bible and takes it seriously, how can that happen? I would think they'd pay more attention to what they're reading so they get it right.

One of my favorite misquotes is from Joseph Smith. He attempted to cite Malachi 4:2 but wrote "Son of Righteousness" instead of "Sun of Righteousness." Then there was the mistake Ellen White made: "The serpent plucked the fruit of the forbidden tree and placed it in the hands of the half-reluctant Eve." That told me she put more faith in her imagination than in what she read in Genesis.

 

[Giuliano]

Yes.....details of your accusation that the CC undid what the Apostles said at the Council of Jerusalem would be interesting....I look forward to it.

It's a long thread. Rather than point you to the post, I'll quote it.

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The Council of Florence said Christians didn't have to abstain from the blood of animals, writing:

It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs.

The question that needs answered is if this Apostolic prohibition was merely "suited to the times" and thus a practice, or if there really is something wrong with it. I've studied magic. I've read about how animal blood can be used. I also think if people can believe the wine of the Eucharist is the Blood of Christ, they should be able to believe that there is something in the blood of animals that helps make them animals since their life is also in their blood. You can never get all the blood of meat; but the more blood you get, the more of this "soul substance of animals" you are getting. You can take on the nature of the beasts. Today psychologists are beginning to see that but they don't see any spiritual angle. If you ever met someone who drank blood, odds are you'd know what I mean. Some also start off consuming animal blood and move on to human blood. I found an article about it:

Vampiristic Behaviors

The person who first coined the term Renfield’s Syndrome was Richard Noll in 1992. Because it is so rare, we barely hear about this condition. Clinical Vampirism is an obsession with drinking blood and sufferers are usually male. According to Hemphill and Zabow (1983), Clinical Vampirism is not considered a symptom of an Axis I diagnosis or Axis II of the DSM and is rarely seen in clinical practice. People exhibiting this behavior are classified as schizophrenic or paraphiliac (where the person becomes sexually aroused by atypical objects or situations). It manifests after the person has a childhood experience in which the taste and sight of blood is associated with pleasure and excitement. It starts with an event in which the person likes to taste blood or finds bleeding enjoyable. During puberty, the attraction to blood become sexualized.

The syndrome progresses to three stages:

1) Autovampirism: This happens before puberty when the child is excited in a sexual event that involves blood injury or ingestion of blood. It becomes fused with sexual fantasies. A person likes their own blood. They will self-inflict wounds or learn to open major arteries in order to consume their blood..

2) Zoophagia: A person eats living creatures such as insects, cats, dogs and birds. They may also go to a butcher and obtain animal blood.

3) Vampirism: When a person drinks the blood of another. They may steal blood from hospitals or resort to violence, assault or murder. According to Noll (1992), people who drink the blood of others believe that it gives them a sense of power or immortality.

A person has the delusional notion that they are a vampire and needs blood. It is an erotic attraction to blood and develops through fantasies that involve sexual excitement. It has a fetishistic and compulsive component. Treatment is usually not sought out unless the symptoms become problematic for the person and are willing to address their problem. If treatment is sought, treatment options include: psychoanalysis, hypnosis, behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, medication management.

I also ask if Christians believe the Eucharist has real consequences being in honor of Jesus, do they not also think that things consecrated to idols means something? Paul talks about people who do not discern the Lord's body. Has it not occurred to people then that they may not discern the demonic nature in things offered to idols?

The same effect occurs with fornication. People may not notice soul energy or spiritual energy and substance being exchanged; but they are. It can confuse the soul, and prevent people from having a sound mind. It's harder for the Holy Spirit to reach them if unholy energy has entered the body.

1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

I believe the four things the Apostles mentioned endanger us because they confuse the soul and mind.

 

[brakelite]

because they were taught by the leaders of The Church they MUST share with anyone.

Now you are subtly twisting your own argument. You originally were claiming that aAnanias and Sapphira were obliged through church mandate to sell their house... Which I disagreed with. Yes, we are taught in scripture to be generous, giving as we are able to the needy. And yes, the holy Spirit led some to sell property and give the proceeds to the church. But this was not a church mandated and stipulated commandment. It was voluntary... And those two lied to sustain their reputation, and they kept back some of the proceeds because they didn't trust God. If they had not sold the property, none would have complained. And if they had been honest about holding back some of the proceeds there would have been no issue. They died because they lied, not because they were disobeying the church.

 

[brakelite]

I apologize for quoting scripture that destroyed your theory. It is tough when a woman, who is not allowed to preach to men (1 Timothy 2:12), schools you in Scripture but we women sometimes know Scripture better than you men. Like compassion and what we MUST do (Luke 3:11)

I know your pride will not allow you to acknowledge that Scripture destroys your theory soooo I digress.

So your intention was to destroy a theory of mine? You quoted verses that stated that people gave generously to the church. Please quote me any instance where I said otherwise.
I did say such giving was voluntary, particularly in the case of selling property. Please quote scripture that says selling property was a commandment

 

[brakelite]

I know your pride.....

No, you don't.

 

[brakelite]

Then there was the mistake Ellen White made: "The serpent plucked the fruit of the forbidden tree and placed it in the hands of the half-reluctant Eve." That told me she put more faith in her imagination than in what she read in Genesis.

KJV Genesis 3
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
I don't see any overt contradiction. If she indeed saw that event in vision and described what she saw it doesn't contradict Genesis, but merely supplements it.

 

[brakelite]

KJV Genesis 3
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
I don't see any overt contradiction. If she indeed saw that event in vision and described what she saw it doesn't contradict Genesis, but merely supplements it.

And notice that in context a little later what Eve did...
The serpent plucked the fruit of the forbidden tree and placed it in the hands of the half-reluctant Eve. Then he reminded her of her own words, that God had forbidden them to touch it, lest they die. She would receive no more harm from eating the fruit, he declared, than from touching it. Perceiving no evil results from what she had done, Eve grew bolder. When she “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.” It was grateful to the taste, and as she ate, she seemed to feel a vivifying power, and imagined herself entering upon a higher state of existence. Without a fear she plucked and ate. And now, having herself transgressed, she became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband. In a state of strange, unnatural excitement, with her hands filled with the forbidden fruit, she sought his presence, and related all that had occurred. P

 

[Giuliano]

KJV Genesis 3
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
I don't see any overt contradiction. If she indeed saw that event in vision and described what she saw it doesn't contradict Genesis, but merely supplements it.

Could the serpent force her to disobey God, or was the serpent's power in his words of guile? Adam and Eve had dominion, not the serpent, so I believe the serpent deceived her and got her to pluck it. "She took of the fruit." She did it.

In another place she said Adam was deceived.

The Upward Look

So ingenious are the plans that Satan lays to deceive and pervert, that the very blessings that come to us in the divine life may be turned into snares. By the same false reasoning by which he deceived Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he seeks to turn the very blessings which God sends for our good into snares and a curse. He seeks to lead men to use God's gifts as weapons against the Giver.

Genesis does say or even imply Adam was deceived, and the New Testament says he was not. I don't know why she would have written that.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[brakelite]

Could the serpent force her to disobey God, or was the serpent's power in his words of guile? Adam and Eve had dominion, not the serpent, so I believe the serpent deceived her and got her to pluck it. "She took of the fruit." She did it.

In another place she said Adam was deceived.

The Upward Look

So ingenious are the plans that Satan lays to deceive and pervert, that the very blessings that come to us in the divine life may be turned into snares. By the same false reasoning by which he deceived Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he seeks to turn the very blessings which God sends for our good into snares and a curse. He seeks to lead men to use God's gifts as weapons against the Giver.

Genesis does say or even imply Adam was deceived, and the New Testament says he was not. I don't know why she would have written that.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Mmmm, don't know why she wrote that either.
From patriarchs and prophets...
Adam understood that his companion had transgressed the command of God, disregarded the only prohibition laid upon them as a test of their fidelity and love. There was a terrible struggle in his mind.He mourned that he had permitted Eve to wander from his side. But now the deed was done; he must be separated from her whose society had been his joy. How could he have it thus? Adam had enjoyed the companionship of God and of holy angels. He had looked upon the glory of the Creator. He understood the high destiny opened to the human race should they remain faithful to God. Yet all these blessings were lost sight of in the fear of losing that one gift which in his eyes outvalued every other. Love, gratitude, loyalty to the Creator—all were overborne by love to Eve. She was a part of himself, and he could not endure the thought of separation. He did not realize that the same Infinite Power who had from the dust of the earth created him, a living, beautiful form, and had in love given him a companion, could supply her place.He resolved to share her fate; if she must die, he would die with her.After all, he reasoned, might not the words of the wise serpent be true?Eve was before him, as beautiful and apparently as innocent as before this act of disobedience. She expressed greater love for him than before. No sign of death appeared in her, and he decided to brave the consequences.He seized the fruit and quickly ate.

 

[Giuliano]

Mmmm, don't know why she wrote that either.
From patriarchs and prophets...
Adam understood that his companion had transgressed the command of God, disregarded the only prohibition laid upon them as a test of their fidelity and love. There was a terrible struggle in his mind.He mourned that he had permitted Eve to wander from his side. But now the deed was done; he must be separated from her whose society had been his joy. How could he have it thus? Adam had enjoyed the companionship of God and of holy angels. He had looked upon the glory of the Creator. He understood the high destiny opened to the human race should they remain faithful to God. Yet all these blessings were lost sight of in the fear of losing that one gift which in his eyes outvalued every other. Love, gratitude, loyalty to the Creator—all were overborne by love to Eve. She was a part of himself, and he could not endure the thought of separation. He did not realize that the same Infinite Power who had from the dust of the earth created him, a living, beautiful form, and had in love given him a companion, could supply her place.He resolved to share her fate; if she must die, he would die with her.After all, he reasoned, might not the words of the wise serpent be true?Eve was before him, as beautiful and apparently as innocent as before this act of disobedience. She expressed greater love for him than before. No sign of death appeared in her, and he decided to brave the consequences.He seized the fruit and quickly ate.

It is very strange; but I think it shows she hadn't taken the bible too seriously.

Adam had said, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." I believe he was divinely inspired when he said that. So if that's true, it would be a commandment from God. How could Adam cleave to Eve unless he shared her fate? He was put in a position that no matter what he did, he'd be disobeying a commandment from God.

What did he mean by "leave his father and his mother"? I'm not sure exactly; but it could be read to mean he needed to learn to love Eve before he could love God. God was too big and too mysterious to know how to love Him. Start off little and grow into it. Jopn comments that we're lying if we say we love God but don't love other people. So I think Adam chose to obey God's commandment to love Eve and to cleave to her even if it meant death. Leaving his father could mean choosing Eve over God.

There was also the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. If he and Eve did not reproduce, they would preventing future generations of men and women coming into existence. Eve had not considered that when she ate, but maybe Adam did. So perhaps out of love for children not yet born, he chose to eat that fruit.

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

What is curious about Genesis is that the word "sin" is not used of their fall. It's described as "transgression" once in the New Testament. I see Adam as similar to Jesus in some ways.

 

[Waiting on him]

Mmmm, don't know why she wrote that either.
From patriarchs and prophets...
Adam understood that his companion had transgressed the command of God, disregarded the only prohibition laid upon them as a test of their fidelity and love. There was a terrible struggle in his mind.He mourned that he had permitted Eve to wander from his side. But now the deed was done; he must be separated from her whose society had been his joy. How could he have it thus? Adam had enjoyed the companionship of God and of holy angels. He had looked upon the glory of the Creator. He understood the high destiny opened to the human race should they remain faithful to God. Yet all these blessings were lost sight of in the fear of losing that one gift which in his eyes outvalued every other. Love, gratitude, loyalty to the Creator—all were overborne by love to Eve. She was a part of himself, and he could not endure the thought of separation. He did not realize that the same Infinite Power who had from the dust of the earth created him, a living, beautiful form, and had in love given him a companion, could supply her place.He resolved to share her fate; if she must die, he would die with her.After all, he reasoned, might not the words of the wise serpent be true?Eve was before him, as beautiful and apparently as innocent as before this act of disobedience. She expressed greater love for him than before. No sign of death appeared in her, and he decided to brave the consequences.He seized the fruit and quickly ate.

Adam forecasted this earlier in Genesis. For this cause a man shall leave his mother and Father.
Who was Adams Mother?

 

[Waiting on him]

Adam forecasted this earlier in Genesis. For this cause a man shall leave his mother and Father.
Who was Adams Mother?

Sorry didn’t see this was already presented.