Like Confession & Confirmation? Is that in Scripture?
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
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!
Like Confession & Confirmation? Is that in Scripture?
In the Bible of course. Lol
Confession of sins:
Jn 20:23 / 1 Jn 1:9
The only problem is that there is a world of difference between the Catholic Mass and the Lord's Supper. In fact the Mass violates what Scripture says about the sacrifice of Christ. That it was ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER.
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!Simple question, what's wrong with Bible alone, what can anything outside of that really teach us ?
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.@CadyandZoe I hope you won't forget to respond.
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.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.
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.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.
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.God revealed and commanded religion and worship
Faith and practices
And temple and ark of the covenant and morals
And the new covenant sacrifice of Christ is the only worship in spirit and truth
The propitiatory sacrifice of the mass
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.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.
Blessing to you James. My source of divine knowledge predates the Catholic church.Hi Cady,
The Sacraments, we recieved from Christ through the apostles.
This is why you find them at the centre of the life of the Church in every 2000 year old apostolic community.
The Chrurch in Rome, the Church in Alexandria (and the Church in Constantinople) are 3 2000 year old living witnesses to this Truth,
Where is the 2000 year old community that says otherwise?
Peace be with you!
These things you mention are not sacraments.shows you have nothing
No faith
No hope
No charity
No religion
No covenant
No sacrifice
No salvation
No savior
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?All you have Is a bible study and you can’t handle that
Blessing to you James. My source of divine knowledge predates the Catholic church.
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
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.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!
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.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
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.
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.
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.