It arose through two misunderstandings –

(1) an inability to distinguish the Pauline difference between the ‘Spirit’ of the Law and the ‘Works’ of the Law. According to Paul, salvation cannot be earned through keeping the ritual ‘works’ of the Law of Moses – the sacrifical system, keeping Shabbat, the dietary laws, circumcision – all the outward signs separating Jew from non-Jew.

(2) the failure to recognise that neither the Greek word ‘pistis’ nor the English word ‘faith’ convey the same meaning to us as their Hebrew counterpart did to Hebrews. The Hebrew concept of ‘faith’ is not just a mental belief in a proposition but implies persistence, loyalty, unwavering conviction and ‘faithfulness’ to ’someone.’

This inward ‘faithfulness’ is demonstrated by outward ‘works,’ just as Paul himself worked tirelessly for the Kingdom.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Words have meaning alright. In this case it’s a deeper meaning using figurative words. I find it hard not to believe that you’re just wilfully misunderstanding the passage. Understanding it to mean real flesh and blood goes against everything Jesus stood for, and makes total hash out of the meaning…

But then again, you like to believe that Sitchen nonsense too… next thing ya know, you’ll be telling us a UFO abducted you and you’ve been mind wiped.

Report comment to moderator

Well, yes, that would be a better understanding. So would calling it a way of predicting the lottery numbers. Just about anything’s better than “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. Unfortunately, the passages say nothing about a “suseranity treaty”, and to say that’s what they’re about is about as sensible as saying it’s all about predicting lottery numbers. It’s about “eat my flesh and drink my blood” if words have any meaning.

Report comment to moderator

Do get a grip. The idea that the blood and body is produced by eating bread and wine is totally missing the point of communion. A better understanding would be a suseranity treaty between a King and his Lords. They pledge fealty to him, and he promises his protection.

In the case of God though, he swears that if we do not hold up our end of the bargain, then he’ll take our punishment. His blood symbolized by the wine signifies Jesus substitutionary death. The body of Jesue symbolized by the bread signifies his perfect life, and his imputed righteousness to our account. By participating in this sacrament we as Christians, once again, recognize all of this and we commit to our King.

To focus on transubstantiation is to totally miss the purpose and meaning of this covenenant. You’ve been around long enough not to be sidetracked by misinterpretation.

Report comment to moderator

On a main note, I find it ludicrous that with this same belief the Mormons have reduced God himself to a person who is merely procreating and gathering knowledge.

Mr Meaner,
I think an understanding that one is a sinner in need of salvation is integral to being a christian. What the Mormons believe about this is a totally different thing. Their belief is works based merit, and the Christian belief is that they cannot ever merit salvation. It takes the work of Christ – his substitutionary death (and his imputed righteousness) to actually save us from the wrath of God. The Mormon belief is that we can actually earn our “salvation”. (Salvation from what exactly?)

That being said, I’d pick Romney over several other candidates…

Report comment to moderator

Do you dispute this?

” therefore, do not fulfill the requirements for salvation- believing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead.”

neither does the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I, of couse, disagree with the Archbishop. But apparently some self-professed Christians do agree.
I’m not the judge. I know what I think about it.
But, once again…the point is, what is it about Romney being a Mormon, that makes him a bad POTUS candidate?

Report comment to moderator