In the Bible of course. Lol
Confession of sins:
Jn 20:23 / 1 Jn 1:9
Confirmation
Mt 17:27 Lk 22:32 acts 8:14-17
acts 14:22
Bible alone
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
In the Bible of course. Lol
Confession of sins:
Jn 20:23 / 1 Jn 1:9
Confirmation
Mt 17:27 Lk 22:32 acts 8:14-17
acts 14:22
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Simple question, what's wrong with Bible alone, what can anything outside of that really teach us ? If you have something ,please share, however whatever it is has no authority . I have nothing against Mormons other than the fact that I don't agree with them, but outside of Scripture ,you would have one reading the book of Mormons
Also what's up with the catechism of the catholic church ,what is that, is that not like adding to scripture ? It seems (IMO) that Catholics hold more to that than the actual scripture themselves
Also what's up with the catechism of the catholic church ,what is that, is that not like adding to scripture ? It seems (IMO) that Catholics hold more to that than the actual scripture themselves
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Obviously, without departure from the Bible, you won't be able to bless idolatry (eg, "Pachamama") the way the Pope does! You need 2000 years of tradition to do that! Now, turn your back on the Word and listen to a false prophet (one who claims to speak on behalf of The Name) with traditions and dictates that contradict God's Word!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I didn't respond because we seem to be talking past each other and I can't yet figure out the exact locus of our disagreement. I would definitely like to move the conversation forward in a productive direction. Honestly. I don't wish to ignore you. And maybe something will occur to me later.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
You're trying to say water and Spirit refer to amniotic fluid and then being born of the Spirit, and you want to claim Nicodemus was born again and that Jesus was trying to convince him of that. I am denying that water and Spirit refers to amniotic fluid and Spirit and that it just refers to Spirit based on "living waters shall flow from his belly (this he spake of the Spirit...)" and I deny Nicodemus was "born again" because I don't believe people partook of the benefits of the new Covenant until Christ inaugurated it and Christ was "firstborn among many brethren" among other arguments.
Last edited:
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Right next to "[USER] Said" you should be able to find an arrow (it's usually invisible on my settings but if you highlight the area you will see it). Click that to take you back to the quote so you can see what the disagreements were.
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Well, yes and no. Mankind invented religion himself because he needs it. Rather than getting rid of religion altogether, God redeemed religion, tweaking it so as to use it to teach his people important lessons.
For instance, many religions already existed, which employed temples. And in each of these temples stood an idol, representing the particular god being worshipped there. Yahweh's temple is uniquely different in this respect. His temple contains no image, or statue. It contains a mercy seat, Aaron's rod, and some of the mana. And those who worship there are invited to wonder and ask, "What do these things represent? Why are these things significant?"
One of the Ten commandments contains a prohibition against the creation of an idol. Ever wonder why? Yahweh is training Israel and through them the rest of us to appreciate the fact that there is nothing in the entire created order that can represent him. He is totally "other." He is the transcendent creator God, the most real being.
The Jewish religion, not the Catholic religion is the ONLY religion God commanded, but only for a people living under that covenant. And both Jesus and Paul likened the Jewish religion to slavery. Jesus came to set the sons free from their masters.
Your masters have placed you into bondage again. I encourage you to pray to the Father to set you free from bondage and learn how to serve Christ by the spirit rather than the letter.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Well, I don't allow myself the luxury of reading my theology into a passage under study. I can't claim to understand a passage until I am certain that I am allowing the passage to speak for itself. While John 3 might have the New Covenant in view, it might also be the case that John 3 might be saying something unrelated to the New Covenant. For this reason, I can't immediately assume the case, reading the New Covenant into the passage. For similar reasons, I can't allow John 7 or John 10 to inform the meaning of this passage.
Let me back up one step. The interpretation of any other text requires the reader to ask three questions: 1) what does it say, 2) what does it mean? and 3) is it true? With regard to the scriptures, we don't need to ask whether the passage speaks truth. However, the Bible invites the reader to ask another question, "what is the significance of what was said"? Why is it important?
Before I can answer the third question, I must be able to answer the first two questions first. Bible translators have helped me answer the first question, "what does it say?" The hard work ahead is figuring out what it means. In order to answer the second question, "what does it mean" I am constrained by the text itself. The answer as to "the meaning" must come from the immediate context. What clues does John give the reader?
First clue:
"Rabbi, we know that . . ."
Second clue:
"no one can do these signs"
Third clue:
"one cannot see the kingdom"
Within two sentences we have three clues indicating to the reader that the topic of discussion is divine revelation. Nicodemus admits that his knowledge concerning the divine appointment of Jesus is empirically based, i.e. he witnessed the signs. Jesus informs Nicodemus that his ability to make the connection between the signs and Jesus' divine appointment was a gift from above. Isaiah predicts that the coming messiah will heal the sick, and therefore, since Jesus is supernaturally healing the sick, this is a sure sign that Jesus is the Christ, the coming one. But not everyone is willing to admit the truth of what they saw. Jesus is telling Nicodemus that his recognition of the Christ is a clear indication that he has been born again.
Forth clue:
"enter a second time into his mother’s womb"
Fifth clue:
unless one is born of water . . .
Jesus relies on Nick's understanding of childbirth, specifically related to the womb. Jesus, as a wise teacher, bases new knowledge on what is already known. Nick already knows that when a baby is born, several things exit the womb, specifically a baby, a placenta, and other liquid. Jesus is answering the question as to why a man doesn't need to enter his mother's womb again. Remember, birth is the subject matter. Jesus is basically saying, "unless a man is born twice, once naturally, and again spiritually, he can't enter the kingdom of God." Natural birth isn't enough.
Why does this matter? The Jews prided themselves on their birthright. They prided themselves on being children of Abraham. Jesus often warns them against putting hope in that fact alone.
I could say more, but this post is too long.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Blessing to you James. My source of divine knowledge predates the Catholic church.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I have noticed that many times, when Jesus or the Apostles wish to make a point, they often quote the scriptures. I have seen various numbers but we can confidently say that the New Testament quotes the Hebrew scriptures more than 200 times. Some say over 900 times. The point is, if Jesus and the Apostles used scripture to defend their position, then who am I to disagree?
I can also confidently say that Jesus never quoted another rabbi as authoritative. In fact, the crowds realized that Jesus was speaking with his own authority, not predicated on Jewish tradition. Jesus often spoke highly of the scriptures and even was heard saying, "the scriptures can't be broken." and it was God the Father himself who taught the people to always check the word of a prophet against prior revelation.
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
Would you care to elaborate on that?
The sacraments are found everywhere that the apostles planted the Church. Does this 'source' contradict what your brothers and sisters have believed and lived for 2000 years?
Peace!
yes a lot more, Christ!
Jesus Christ is Lord and rules and reins in the holy church!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I'll have to take your word on that. I haven't studied Patristics. All I know is that sacramentalism isn't taught in the Bible.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Jesus is not giving the Apostles the authority to proscribe anything that hasn't already been forbidden. He is giving them the ability to recognize sin when it appears.
John is talking about confessing our sins to God and to each other, not privately to a priest. The only priest is Jesus Christ.
As someone already said, the scripture verses you present don't speak to the subject matter.
We are in the new covenant church founded by God not men
And we have no idols
Idols are gods worshiped ie. adored and offered sacrifice to like the Shinto and Buddhists and Hindi
The Christian religion is true religion founded by God in faith and sacraments
rabbi is just a lay leader had no authority
Only the high priest and those who sat in the seat (cathedral) of Moses had authority and that was taken away and given to Peter and the apostles in the holy church now the chair (cathedral) of peter and Christ is high priest
1 cor 11:23 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.
what scripture is Paul quoting?
”I have received” “delivered”
That’s tradition
Teaching authority of the apostles
Similar threads
