Born again as adults is a grave error and only a massive Protestant money making delusion and deception and an innovation and addition to true Christianity imho - the whole thrust re Jn. 3:3-5 is about being born again as little children simply believing and accepting which we are told elsewhere is simply simply very difficult is well nigh impossible for adults - little Catholic children are rightly baptised and confirmed as and whilst simply simply believing - wincam
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 05:24:20
Born again as adults is a grave error
Then John 3:7 means nothing to you?
From King James
7 "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."
From the Catholic online Bible
7 Do not be surprised when I say: You must be born from above.
Your beliefs are not at all surprising considering your Pope said
"Pope Says Having A Personal Relationship With Jesus Is Dangerous And Harmful"
"And that a personal relationship with Jesus is wrong."
http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/ (http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/)
That is the difference between you and me.
I am a proud card carrying BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN and I value my PERSONAL relationship with my Lord and Savior, Jesus who instructed me to be born again.
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 05:24:20
Born again as adults is a grave error and only a massive Protestant money making delusion
Haha! Protestant money making delusion! We don't pay to be saved...that was done waaay back within the Catholic church. It was called Indulgences.
- little Catholic children are rightly baptised and confirmed as and whilst simply simply believing - wincam
Is it *their* belief, or is it done because the parents fear they will be lost and so *they* get them baptized and confirmed?
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
What does it mean to be " born again" ? Maybe someone needs to define that metaphor so to get on the same page.
This Thread sounds just like Nicodemus
::frown::
John Ch.3
Jesus answered and said unto him,
Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
...
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him,
How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him,
Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
---- The Wise Man Saith -----
Song of Solomon 4:1
Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair;
thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks:
thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
2 Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn,
which came up from the washing;
whereof every one bear twins,
and none is barren among them.
Titus 3:5
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Eph.5:25
"..... even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church,
not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing;
but that it should be holy and without blemish.
as The Wise Man Saith
Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair;
thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks:
2 Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn,
which came up from the washing;
whereof every one bear twins,
and none is barren among them.
Posters
Put away the "--- many books ---" written by the Theolgians
Dust off your Bible
Get yourself a good Hebrew and a Greek Dictionary
and get some real Learning in the School of Christ
lest ye be as Peter says
"which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
_________________________________________________________________
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling,
and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour,
be glory and majesty, dominion and power,
both now and ever. Amen.
::eatingpopcorn:
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 09:42:48
Posters
Put away the "--- many books ---" written by the Theolgians
Dust off your Bible
Get yourself a good Hebrew and a Greek Dictionary
and get some real Learning in the School of Christ
lest ye be as Peter says
"which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
What many books? No one is talking about books. ::shrug::
: Rella Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:46:50
Your beliefs are not at all surprising considering your Pope said
"Pope Says Having A Personal Relationship With Jesus Is Dangerous And Harmful"
"And that a personal relationship with Jesus is wrong."
http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/ (http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/)
That is a blatant LIE!
Pope Francis did not say either of those things
You need to repent
There are many ideas and confusion amongst Protestant and Catholics. How is one born again of the spirit ?
If one does not truly understand a spiritual relationship with Christ and the Father it is virtually impossible to be Born again from above. To be Born again only comes when you meet with Christ in the prayer closet. If you never come to Him in private prayer then you cannot be born again. This is an absolute truth. Jesus said That God is spirit and one must worship as spirit. To pray to an object is carnal it is idle worship. One can pray with a congregation, but if you do not have a daily relationship in your prayer closet you are not born again, only in your head. .
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Water baptism of itself does not make one Born again. One can be born again of he spirit even before he is Baptized in water. Or he can be born again after.
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:13:26
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Water baptism of itself does not make one Born again.
Yes it does.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:18:39
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:13:26
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Water baptism of itself does not make one Born again.
Yes it does.
Nah, unh. (your turn)
haha. just kidding...sort of. Winsome, the act of baptism doesn't save unless the heart wants to be saved. God will not force salvation on anyone. It is possible to "get wet" and yet, not be born again. Being born again is about the heart wanting to be right with God. That must come first.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:18:39
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:13:26
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Water baptism of itself does not make one Born again.
Yes it does.
Water baptism is a cleansing of one sins. It does not establish a spiritual relationship with Christ . In the discourse in John three " innless one is born again of the spirit
and of water which says they are separate events. How much time do you spend with Jesus in the prayer closet? If you do it often then you have established a spiritual relationship with Him in the spirit. Born again of the spirit. If you do not spend time in a spiritual relationship with Christ then water baptism would be meaningless
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Winsome, that isn't how it works.You can't just sprinkle water on them, say a few words, and the child is automatically born from above. It requires an inner choice from them, repentance, and an infant simply does not have the cognitive abilities to do such. No need anyway, as an infant is innocent.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:18:39
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:13:26
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Water baptism of itself does not make one Born again.
Yes it does.
verses?
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:47:17
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Winsome, that isn't how it works.You can't just sprinkle water on them, say a few words, and the child is automatically born from above. It requires an inner choice from them, repentance, and an infant simply does not have the cognitive abilities to do such. No need anyway, as an infant is innocent.
Amen. putting a few drops of water on a babies head makes no difference whatsoever.
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:33:26
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:18:39
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:13:26
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Water baptism of itself does not make one Born again.
Yes it does.
Nah, unh. (your turn)
haha. just kidding...sort of. Winsome, the act of baptism doesn't save unless the heart wants to be saved. God will not force salvation on anyone. It is possible to "get wet" and yet, not be born again. Being born again is about the heart wanting to be right with God. That must come first.
Lex we are on the same page. True ones heart must want to be right, but it hen must become real by spending time with Christ in prayer and have a hunger for His word. This comes when the Holy spirit actually lives in us ever drawing us closer t the Lord
: chosenone Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:03:00
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:47:17
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Winsome, that isn't how it works.You can't just sprinkle water on them, say a few words, and the child is automatically born from above. It requires an inner choice from them, repentance, and an infant simply does not have the cognitive abilities to do such. No need anyway, as an infant is innocent.
Amen. putting a few drops of water on a babies head makes no difference whatsoever.
Of course it doesn't. But that is not baptism.
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:38:19
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:18:39
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:13:26
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Water baptism of itself does not make one Born again.
Yes it does.
Water baptism is a cleansing of one sins. It does not establish a spiritual relationship with Christ . In the discourse in John three " innless one is born again of the spirit and of water which says they are separate events. How much time do you spend with Jesus in the prayer closet? If you do it often then you have established a spiritual relationship with Him in the spirit. Born again of the spirit. If you do not spend time in a spiritual relationship with Christ then water baptism would be meaningless
They are not separate events.
They happen together. It is when we are baptised (in water) that the Holy Spirit regenerates us.
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Something here does not compute. You say a baby sprinkled with water in the name of the Father the son and the Holy Ghost is not born again but if one who say later is sprinkled with water in the Father Son and Holy Ghost is born again. ::pondering::
----Born Again ----
Job 28:1
Surely there is a vein for the silver,
and a place for gold where they fine it.
....
12 But where shall wisdom be found?
and where is the place of understanding?
God Asks Job
Job 39:1
Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth ?
or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
2 Canst thou number the months that they fulfil?
or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
Ps. 29:9
"The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve,...."
Jn. 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth,
and thou hearest the sound thereof,
but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:
so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Rev. 12:2
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;
a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet,
and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried,
travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.\
as God asked Job
Knowest thou "the time" when the wild goats of the rock bring forth ?
or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
2 Canst thou number the months that they fulfil?
or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
___________________________________________________________
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling,
and to present you faultless
before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour,
be glory and majesty, dominion and power,
both now and ever. Amen.
::eatingpopcorn:
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:31:38
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Something here does not compute. You say a baby sprinkled with water in the name of the Father the son and the Holy Ghost is not born again but if one who say later is sprinkled with water in the Father Son and Holy Ghost is born again. ::pondering::
No, I didn't say that.
I said that an infant, "once they get wet by water blessed by a priest", is not born again because that is not baptism. An infant who is baptised (in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) is born again.
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:38:27
----Born Again ----
Job 28:1
Surely there is a vein for the silver,
and a place for gold where they fine it.
....
12 But where shall wisdom be found?
and where is the place of understanding?
God Asks Job
Job 39:1
Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth ?
or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
2 Canst thou number the months that they fulfil?
or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
Ps. 29:9
"The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve,...."
Jn. 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth,
and thou hearest the sound thereof,
but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:
so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Rev. 12:2
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;
a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet,
and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried,
travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.\
as God asked Job
Knowest thou "the time" when the wild goats of the rock bring forth ?
or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
2 Canst thou number the months that they fulfil?
or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
___________________________________________________________
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling,
and to present you faultless
before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour,
be glory and majesty, dominion and power,
both now and ever. Amen.
::eatingpopcorn:
How do you find this to contribute to the thread, Babbler?
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:41:41
No, I didn't say that.
I said that an infant, "once they get wet by water blessed by a priest", is not born again because that is not baptism. An infant who is baptised (in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) is born again.
Its the exact same thing, and you know it, Winsome.
And, sadly, many *think* their children are saved due to an act *they* themselves had not a moment of input in, but they are wrong. We cannot save our children by following a ritual for them. *They* *must* come to God on their own.
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:42:12
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:38:27
----Born Again ----
as God asked Job
Knowest thou "the time" when the "wild goats" of the rock bring forth ?
or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
2 Canst thou number the months that they fulfil?
or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
___________________________________________________________
How do you find this to contribute to the thread, Babbler?
OK;
Who are these
Wild Goats spoken of by Job, God and David
plz. note:
these are
Wild Goats, Not in Bondage too nor
the Servants of Man or Men
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:13:04
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:38:19
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:18:39
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:13:26
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Water baptism of itself does not make one Born again.
Yes it does.
Water baptism is a cleansing of one sins. It does not establish a spiritual relationship with Christ . In the discourse in John three " innless one is born again of the spirit and of water which says they are separate events. How much time do you spend with Jesus in the prayer closet? If you do it often then you have established a spiritual relationship with Him in the spirit. Born again of the spirit. If you do not spend time in a spiritual relationship with Christ then water baptism would be meaningless
They are not separate events.
They happen together. It is when we are baptised (in water) that the Holy Spirit regenerates us.
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
We mare not reading the same Bible,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
. Tit 3:5
Washing of regeneration comes when one first believes tha Jesus is Lord and repents in his sins in his heart heart. Take the thief on the cross When was he regenerated? You have Jesus locked up in a box of laws.
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:50:21
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:42:12
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:38:27
----Born Again ----
as God asked Job
Knowest thou "the time" when the "wild goats" of the rock bring forth ?
or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
2 Canst thou number the months that they fulfil?
or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
___________________________________________________________
How do you find this to contribute to the thread, Babbler?
OK;
Who are these Wild Goats spoken of by Job, God and David
plz. note:
these are Wild Goats, Not in Bondage too nor the Servants of Man or Men
I think you might be posting on a different thread than you mean to.
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:54:13
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:50:21
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:42:12
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:38:27
----Born Again ----
as God asked Job
Knowest thou "the time" when the "wild goats" of the rock bring forth ?
or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
2 Canst thou number the months that they fulfil?
or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
___________________________________________________________
How do you find this to contribute to the thread, Babbler?
OK;
Who are these Wild Goats spoken of by Job, God and David
plz. note:
these are Wild Goats, Not in Bondage too nor the Servants of Man or Men
I think you might be posting on a different thread than you mean to.
No, we are discussing ".. You must be Born Again"
Matt.23:1
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Christ asked Nicodemus
( one of the Tutors and Governors Paul speaks of in Gal. ch 4 )
Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
You setting in the Seat of Moses as a Tutor and Governor of Isreal
and you know not these things
::doh::
???????
Christ had not began his ministery yet
the were no Apostles at that time
SO:::
Where was Nicodemus supposed to learn of this
--- Born Again Experience ----
this
".. You must be Born Again"
Ps. 29:9
"The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve,...."
There ain't no Magic in the Water
___________________________________________________________________
::eatingpopcorn:
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:18:08
There ain't no Magic in the Water
___________________________________________________________________
*Finally* you make your point. Thanks.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 09:59:45
: Rella Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:46:50
Your beliefs are not at all surprising considering your Pope said
"Pope Says Having A Personal Relationship With Jesus Is Dangerous And Harmful"
"And that a personal relationship with Jesus is wrong."
http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/ (http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/)
That is a blatant LIE!
Pope Francis did not say either of those things
You need to repent
Then I suppose he also did not say
"Pope Francis described as "dangerous" the temptation to believe that one can have "a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ without communion with and the mediation of the church."
http://www.wucnews.com/2014/07/pope-francis-warns-any-personal.html (http://www.wucnews.com/2014/07/pope-francis-warns-any-personal.html)
And these following links are all wrong?
This from National Catholic Reporter... (The Francis Chronicles)
http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says (http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says)
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/pope-francis-says-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous/95078 (http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/pope-francis-says-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous/95078)
http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2014/07/pope-francis-says-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous-and-absurd-without-the-church.html (http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2014/07/pope-francis-says-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous-and-absurd-without-the-church.html)
None of these from any youtube source. I purposely left those out. As well as the blogs about this.
It is not I who needs to repent. He does.
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:43:50
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:41:41
No, I didn't say that.
I said that an infant, "once they get wet by water blessed by a priest", is not born again because that is not baptism. An infant who is baptised (in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) is born again.
Its the exact same thing, and you know it, Winsome.
It's not the same thing
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:28:32
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:43:50
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:41:41
No, I didn't say that.
I said that an infant, "once they get wet by water blessed by a priest", is not born again because that is not baptism. An infant who is baptised (in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) is born again.
Its the exact same thing, and you know it, Winsome.
It's not the same thing
Unh, hunh. Your turn...
Again, kidding sort of. What Lex described is EXACTLY what you are advocating for and you know it. NO ONE can save anyone else. That is between them, as an individual and God.
I wish it weren't so. I wish I could jump through a hoop and my kids all be born again and walk with God, but that's not how it works. I can lead them and teach them and pray for them, but THEY must come to Him on their own.
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:20:54
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:18:08
There ain't no Magic in the Water
___________________________________________________________________
*Finally* you make your point. Thanks.
Oh, did you know John wasn't "Baptizing" as its done today
he was Giving them a Bath using the Lye Soap
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/the-ashes-of-the-red-heifer/ (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/the-ashes-of-the-red-heifer/)
Jn. 13:8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet.
Jesus answered him,
If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
9 Simon Peter saith unto him,
Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
: Rella Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:27:00
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 09:59:45
: Rella Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:46:50
Your beliefs are not at all surprising considering your Pope said
"Pope Says Having A Personal Relationship With Jesus Is Dangerous And Harmful"
"And that a personal relationship with Jesus is wrong."
http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/ (http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/)
That is a blatant LIE!
Pope Francis did not say either of those things
You need to repent
Then I suppose he also did not say
"Pope Francis described as "dangerous" the temptation to believe that one can have "a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ without communion with and the mediation of the church."
http://www.wucnews.com/2014/07/pope-francis-warns-any-personal.html (http://www.wucnews.com/2014/07/pope-francis-warns-any-personal.html)
And these following links are all wrong?
This from National Catholic Reporter... (The Francis Chronicles)
http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says (http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says)
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/pope-francis-says-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous/95078 (http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/pope-francis-says-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous/95078)
http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2014/07/pope-francis-says-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous-and-absurd-without-the-church.html (http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2014/07/pope-francis-says-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous-and-absurd-without-the-church.html)
None of these from any youtube source. I purposely left those out. As well as the blogs about this.
It is not I who needs to repent. He does.
Don't divert.
What you posted was a blatent LIE.
We're speaking of the Roman Catholic method of sprinkling water (that's been sanctified by a priest) on an infant, and saying "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Just because a baby gets wet and a recitation is uttered, it doesn't mean that baby is born again. And as I said, they're innocent anyway.
::tippinghat:: Sorry. Thought better of my reply...ignore this post. ::blushing::
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:31:01
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:28:32
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:43:50
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:41:41
No, I didn't say that.
I said that an infant, "once they get wet by water blessed by a priest", is not born again because that is not baptism. An infant who is baptised (in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) is born again.
Its the exact same thing, and you know it, Winsome.
It's not the same thing
Unh, hunh. Your turn...
Again, kidding sort of. What Lex described is EXACTLY what you are advocating for and you know it. NO ONE can save anyone else. That is between them, as an individual and God.
I wish it weren't so. I wish I could jump through a hoop and my kids all be born again and walk with God, but that's not how it works. I can lead them and teach them and pray for them, but THEY must come to Him on their own.
I'm sorry you are incapable of seeing the difference.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:32:51
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:31:01
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:28:32
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:43:50
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:41:41
No, I didn't say that.
I said that an infant, "once they get wet by water blessed by a priest", is not born again because that is not baptism. An infant who is baptised (in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) is born again.
Its the exact same thing, and you know it, Winsome.
It's not the same thing
Unh, hunh. Your turn...
Again, kidding sort of. What Lex described is EXACTLY what you are advocating for and you know it. NO ONE can save anyone else. That is between them, as an individual and God.
I wish it weren't so. I wish I could jump through a hoop and my kids all be born again and walk with God, but that's not how it works. I can lead them and teach them and pray for them, but THEY must come to Him on their own.
I'm sorry you are incapable of seeing the difference.
Im sorry you are believing a lie.
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:53:15
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:13:04
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:38:19
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:18:39
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:13:26
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 10:06:15
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:56:13
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:15:27
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 07:14:28
Wait, so one being converted and born again as an adult... is a grave error?
there is a difference that makes all the difference between a Christian adult and a convert being born again as a Christian by water and the Spirit - btw it is noticeable that a Protestant does not have to be born again as a Christian on conversion to a Catholic nor vice versa it seems - wincam
And you would say an infant, once they get wet by water blessed by a priest, is born again?
No, but someone who is baptised in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is "born again"
Water baptism of itself does not make one Born again.
Yes it does.
Water baptism is a cleansing of one sins. It does not establish a spiritual relationship with Christ . In the discourse in John three " innless one is born again of the spirit and of water which says they are separate events. How much time do you spend with Jesus in the prayer closet? If you do it often then you have established a spiritual relationship with Him in the spirit. Born again of the spirit. If you do not spend time in a spiritual relationship with Christ then water baptism would be meaningless
They are not separate events.
They happen together. It is when we are baptised (in water) that the Holy Spirit regenerates us.
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
We mare not reading the same Bible,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
. Tit 3:5
Washing of regeneration comes when one first believes tha Jesus is Lord and repents in his sins in his heart heart. Take the thief on the cross When was he regenerated? You have Jesus locked up in a box of laws.
Washing of regeneration - water of rebirth - same thing.
He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity
and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Amplified Bible)
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:33:45
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:32:51
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:31:01
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:28:32
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:43:50
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:41:41
No, I didn't say that.
I said that an infant, "once they get wet by water blessed by a priest", is not born again because that is not baptism. An infant who is baptised (in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) is born again.
Its the exact same thing, and you know it, Winsome.
It's not the same thing
Unh, hunh. Your turn...
Again, kidding sort of. What Lex described is EXACTLY what you are advocating for and you know it. NO ONE can save anyone else. That is between them, as an individual and God.
I wish it weren't so. I wish I could jump through a hoop and my kids all be born again and walk with God, but that's not how it works. I can lead them and teach them and pray for them, but THEY must come to Him on their own.
I'm sorry you are incapable of seeing the difference.
Im sorry you are believing a lie.
I believe the scriptures. It would seem you do not.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:36:57
I believe the scriptures. It would seem you do not.
It would seem that you are now resorting to flame baiting. How sad.
Of course I believe the scriptures. NOWHERE are we told that we can save another person by making them be baptized. They must come to Christ in their own hearts. See Romans 10:9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
A baby can't do either on of these things.
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:31:54
We're speaking of the Roman Catholic method of sprinkling water (that's been sanctified by a priest) on an infant, and saying "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Just because a baby gets wet and a recitation is uttered, it doesn't mean that baby is born again. And as I said, they're innocent anyway.
Actually it's not sprinkling but pouring (or even occasionally full immersion).
The scriptures say we are born again of water on the Spirit (Jn 3:5, Ti 3:5)
By baptism:
Our sins are forgiven
We are reborn as children of God
We become members of the Church (the Body of Christ)
We enter into the New Covenant
In other words - saved.
As Peter says
"Baptism, which corresponds to this
now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:45:18
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:31:54
We're speaking of the Roman Catholic method of sprinkling water (that's been sanctified by a priest) on an infant, and saying "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Just because a baby gets wet and a recitation is uttered, it doesn't mean that baby is born again. And as I said, they're innocent anyway.
Actually it's not sprinkling but pouring (or even occasionally full immersion).
The scriptures say we are born again of water on the Spirit (Jn 3:5, Ti 3:5)
By baptism:
Our sins are forgiven
We are reborn as children of God
We become members of the Church (the Body of Christ)
We enter into the New Covenant
In other words - saved.
As Peter says "Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
So, then, you should be able to drag any person in off the streets and have this done and they.will.be.saved. No matter what, right? Even against their will, or they are out cold and at your complete mercy.
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:42:55
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:36:57
I believe the scriptures. It would seem you do not.
It would seem that you are now resorting to flame baiting. How sad.
Of course I believe the scriptures. NOWHERE are we told that we can save another person by making them be baptized. They must come to Christ in their own hearts. See Romans 10:9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
A baby can't do either on of these things.
The scriptures say we are born again of water on the Spirit (Jn 3:5, Ti 3:5)
By baptism:
Our sins are forgiven
We are reborn as children of God
We become members of the Church (the Body of Christ)
We enter into the New Covenant
In other words - saved.
As Peter says
"Baptism, which corresponds to this
now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:46:53
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:42:55
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:36:57
I believe the scriptures. It would seem you do not.
It would seem that you are now resorting to flame baiting. How sad.
Of course I believe the scriptures. NOWHERE are we told that we can save another person by making them be baptized. They must come to Christ in their own hearts. See Romans 10:9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
A baby can't do either on of these things.
The scriptures say we are born again of water on the Spirit (Jn 3:5, Ti 3:5)
By baptism:
Our sins are forgiven
We are reborn as children of God
We become members of the Church (the Body of Christ)
We enter into the New Covenant
In other words - saved.
As Peter says "Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
Yes, they do say that, but they also say what I posted. So, now what? The truth is, one must come to a decision to be born again on their own; it cannot be done for someone else.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:31:38
: Rella Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:27:00
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 09:59:45
: Rella Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:46:50
Your beliefs are not at all surprising considering your Pope said
"Pope Says Having A Personal Relationship With Jesus Is Dangerous And Harmful"
"And that a personal relationship with Jesus is wrong."
http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/ (http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/)
That is a blatant LIE!
Pope Francis did not say either of those things
You need to repent
Then I suppose he also did not say
"Pope Francis described as "dangerous" the temptation to believe that one can have "a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ without communion with and the mediation of the church."
http://www.wucnews.com/2014/07/pope-francis-warns-any-personal.html (http://www.wucnews.com/2014/07/pope-francis-warns-any-personal.html)
And these following links are all wrong?
This from National Catholic Reporter... (The Francis Chronicles)
http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says (http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says)
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/pope-francis-says-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous/95078 (http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/pope-francis-says-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous/95078)
http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2014/07/pope-francis-says-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous-and-absurd-without-the-church.html (http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2014/07/pope-francis-says-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous-and-absurd-without-the-church.html)
None of these from any youtube source. I purposely left those out. As well as the blogs about this.
It is not I who needs to repent. He does.
Don't divert.
What you posted was a blatent LIE.
The following important observations were made in 1851:
•We cannot allow that every private Priest or member of the Church of Rome should give his own opinions merely as the standard of doctrine. We will have recourse to the oracular response of the Church, and insist that they be represented by themselves; not, however, by private individuals, but by their legal representatives
But, then, there is nothing which they dread so much as the testimony of their own Church. ...
Winsome, baptism is nothing without faith, an appeal to conscience. A baby cannot do that, so it has no effect. You say water, but you're forgetting the Spirit part.
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:48:18
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:46:53
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:42:55
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:36:57
I believe the scriptures. It would seem you do not.
It would seem that you are now resorting to flame baiting. How sad.
Of course I believe the scriptures. NOWHERE are we told that we can save another person by making them be baptized. They must come to Christ in their own hearts. See Romans 10:9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
A baby can't do either on of these things.
The scriptures say we are born again of water on the Spirit (Jn 3:5, Ti 3:5)
By baptism:
Our sins are forgiven
We are reborn as children of God
We become members of the Church (the Body of Christ)
We enter into the New Covenant
In other words - saved.
As Peter says "Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
Yes, they do say that, but they also say what I posted. So, now what? The truth is, one must come to a decision to be born again on their own; it cannot be done for someone else.
Yes it can for infants.
For adults faith is required but for children the faith of their parents is enough. Moreover they are baptised into a believing community. It is then the responsibility, primarily of the parents (and god-parents), but also of the community to bring the child to faith.
: LexKnight Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:54:14
Winsome, baptism is nothing without faith, an appeal to conscience. A baby cannot do that, so it has no effect. You say water, but you're forgetting the Spirit part.
Baptism is very much to do with faith. For adults faith is a pre-requisite
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:56:04
Yes it can for infants.
For adults faith is required but for children the faith of their parents is enough. Moreover they are baptised into a believing community. It is then the responsibility, primarily of the parents (and god-parents), but also of the community to bring the child to faith.
And, what if they never come to faith, even when lead, even when taught, prayed for and agonized over? What if they just say, "Nope. Not for me," and walk away.
Are you saying that because their parents had their hair get wet and a priest spoke specific words over them, they are born again, though they live a life without faith as adults?
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:51:51
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:31:38
: Rella Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:27:00
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 09:59:45
: Rella Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:46:50
Your beliefs are not at all surprising considering your Pope said
"Pope Says Having A Personal Relationship With Jesus Is Dangerous And Harmful"
"And that a personal relationship with Jesus is wrong."
http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/ (http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/)
That is a blatant LIE!
Pope Francis did not say either of those things
You need to repent
Then I suppose he also did not say
"Pope Francis described as "dangerous" the temptation to believe that one can have "a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ without communion with and the mediation of the church."
http://www.wucnews.com/2014/07/pope-francis-warns-any-personal.html (http://www.wucnews.com/2014/07/pope-francis-warns-any-personal.html)
And these following links are all wrong?
This from National Catholic Reporter... (The Francis Chronicles)
http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says (http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says)
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/pope-francis-says-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous/95078 (http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/pope-francis-says-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous/95078)
http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2014/07/pope-francis-says-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous-and-absurd-without-the-church.html (http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2014/07/pope-francis-says-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-dangerous-and-absurd-without-the-church.html)
None of these from any youtube source. I purposely left those out. As well as the blogs about this.
It is not I who needs to repent. He does.
Don't divert.
What you posted was a blatent LIE.
The following important observations were made in 1851:
•We cannot allow that every private Priest or member of the Church of Rome should give his own opinions merely as the standard of doctrine. We will have recourse to the oracular response of the Church, and insist that they be represented by themselves; not, however, by private individuals, but by their legal representatives
But, then, there is nothing which they dread so much as the testimony of their own Church. ...
Lies about what the Pope said is not the testimony of the Church. They are lies.
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:59:00
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:56:04
Yes it can for infants.
For adults faith is required but for children the faith of their parents is enough. Moreover they are baptised into a believing community. It is then the responsibility, primarily of the parents (and god-parents), but also of the community to bring the child to faith.
And, what if they never come to faith, even when lead, even when taught, prayed for and agonized over? What if they just say, "Nope. Not for me," and walk away.
Are you saying that because their parents had their hair get wet and a priest spoke specific words over them, they are born again, though they live a life without faith as adults?
Salvation is not a one off, forever event. OSAS is a false doctrine.
When a child is baptised they receive and become all that I said. But when they die they will be judged on the state of their soul at the the time of death.
If they commit mortal sin, turn away from Christ, then they will be judged on that.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:06:48
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:59:00
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:56:04
Yes it can for infants.
For adults faith is required but for children the faith of their parents is enough. Moreover they are baptised into a believing community. It is then the responsibility, primarily of the parents (and god-parents), but also of the community to bring the child to faith.
And, what if they never come to faith, even when lead, even when taught, prayed for and agonized over? What if they just say, "Nope. Not for me," and walk away.
Are you saying that because their parents had their hair get wet and a priest spoke specific words over them, they are born again, though they live a life without faith as adults?
Salvation is not a one off, forever event. OSAS is a false doctrine.
When a child is baptised they receive and become all that I said. But when they die they will be judged on the state of their soul at the the time of death.
If they commit mortal sin, turn away from Christ, then they will be judged on that.
Ah, gotcha, so they aren't really born again at all...or maybe its that they are born again and die and then have to be born again and again and again...
yeah. Makes sense. ::sarcasmalert:
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:08:49
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:06:48
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:59:00
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:56:04
Yes it can for infants.
For adults faith is required but for children the faith of their parents is enough. Moreover they are baptised into a believing community. It is then the responsibility, primarily of the parents (and god-parents), but also of the community to bring the child to faith.
And, what if they never come to faith, even when lead, even when taught, prayed for and agonized over? What if they just say, "Nope. Not for me," and walk away.
Are you saying that because their parents had their hair get wet and a priest spoke specific words over them, they are born again, though they live a life without faith as adults?
Salvation is not a one off, forever event. OSAS is a false doctrine.
When a child is baptised they receive and become all that I said. But when they die they will be judged on the state of their soul at the the time of death.
If they commit mortal sin, turn away from Christ, then they will be judged on that.
Ah, gotcha, so they aren't really born again at all...or maybe its that they are born again and die and then have to be born again and again and again...
yeah. Makes sense. ::sarcasmalert:
They are born again (more properly born from above). In a sense they do die if they commit mortal sin - hence the term mortal.
They die in the sense that they lose the life of Christ in their souls. But they can regain that in the Sacrtament of Recoinciliation (Confession/Penance).
As the Catechism puts it:
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
I can't keep up with all your responses. I apologise to those I have missed.
I'll try and catch up on any new ones tomorrow.
So then, a baby who is baptized by a priest at his parents request, who grows up to be a murderer, who rejects anything to do with God, was still born again?
How does the Word of God back that up?
This is why infant baptism is not a solid doctrine. Because they can grow up with no real knowledge of the Lord and end up in Hell. Baptism is reserved for those who truly believe and desire to walk uprightly with the Lord.
editing
all this here and presumably more yet to come because what Christ said does not for some make sense and has to be revised - the whole thrust is on being born again here as elsewhere as little children who would simply simply believe the original version and not the revised version by adults who have revised it because as Jesus said they cannot become as little children and simply simply believe - btw Catholics are baptized and confirmed as little children who can and did simply simply believe as little children - btw the sequence should be exactly as stated water[baptism] and then born again[Spirit]at confirmation - btw heaven is opened and accessible after baptism - wincam
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 09:42:48This Thread sounds just like Nicodemus
You added not one thing to show how one is born again, but actually made the water a little more muddy than they were and
still are. The new birth is totally of God, apart from any work of righteousness by the will of the flesh, or the will of man~by Jesus making that statement in
John 1:13, eliminating both messenger, and the hearer of the word of God! Can I have a little fun, yes I can......since man is dead in trespasses and sins, and at enmity (not just an enemy, but much worse....AT enmity!) against God, the birth of the Spirit is totally a work performed by God~therefore, man can dead sleep; plowing a field; drinking himself to a state of drunkenness; committing some gross sin(s); making love to her/his spouse; any other thing that may come into your mind, man could be doing, when the Spirit of God purpose to regenerate one of the elect. God alone is the only active person performing this spiritual birth. Truly, think about it~
what part did any one person here have to do with their first birth? Not one thing. The new birth is no different. Truly, even after one is born of God, it takes TIME for them to begin to hear with understanding and to see what God expect for them to do. Yes, there is a period of TIME between regeneration and conversion to the truth, without question it is. How do I know this, by the scriptures of truth~the apostles were a perfect example of what I'm saying. For some it may be very short time, for others, longer. You will not find what I'm saying in the SDA movement, you must search the scriptures to see and understand what I'm saying. Selah!
all this here and presumably more yet to come because what Christ said does not for some make sense and has to be revised - the whole thrust is on being born again here as elsewhere as little children who would simply simply believe the original version and not the revised version by adults who have revised it because as Jesus said they cannot become as little children and simply simply believe - btw Catholics are baptized and confirmed as little children who can and did simply simply believe as little children - wincam
::frustrated:: ::frustrated:: They didn't believe jack. Their parents did and took them to be sprinkled by a priest according to what they believe. But, not according to anything that Jesus or Paul taught concerning salvation.
The very idea that the Catholic Church believes this cheapens an insults the Gospel. It's quite the circus act. ::juggle::
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 14:31:53
all this here and presumably more yet to come because what Christ said does not for some make sense and has to be revised - the whole thrust is on being born again here as elsewhere as little children who would simply simply believe the original version and not the revised version by adults who have revised it because as Jesus said they cannot become as little children and simply simply believe - btw Catholics are baptized and confirmed as little children who can and did simply simply believe as little children - wincam
it is required that adults simply simply believe as little children who do simply believe what they heard and were told and not what they later added to and imagined as inspired by the Holy Spirit - wincam
::frustrated:: ::frustrated:: They didn't believe jack. Their parents did and took them to be sprinkled by a priest according to what they believe. But, not according to anything that Jesus or Paul taught concerning salvation.
The very idea that the Catholic Church believes this cheapens an insults the Gospel. It's quite the circus act. ::juggle::
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 14:15:40
all this here and presumably more yet to come because what Christ said does not for some make sense and has to be revised - the whole thrust is on being born again here as elsewhere as little children who would simply simply believe the original version and not the revised version by adults who have revised it because as Jesus said they cannot become as little children and simply simply believe - btw Catholics are baptized and confirmed as little children who can and did simply simply believe as little children - btw the sequence should be exactly as stated water[baptism] and then born again[Spirit]at confirmation - btw heaven is opened and accessible after baptism - wincam
Simply simply SIMPLY put...they can't believe ANYTHING as infants! Infants cannot reason, they cannot make a decision TO believe...their parents take them to be "baptized" because they have been made to fear that without it being done by a Catholic priest, they will burn in hell.
Sad. Because, so many participate and think their children are right with God, but their hearts don't know Him. They don't know how to lead their babies TO Him...and so many are lost, because of it.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:46:53
The scriptures say we are born again of water on the Spirit (Jn 3:5, Ti 3:5)
By baptism:
Our sins are forgiven
We are reborn as children of God
We become members of the Church (the Body of Christ)
We enter into the New Covenant
In other words - saved.
As Peter says "Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
1 Peter 3:21
Which sometime were disobedient,
when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,
while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Posters;
Noah, his wife, 3 sons and their wives were not saved by the Water,
in fact they didn't even get wet, the water drowned, destroyed the Antediluvian world,
not saved it
It Was --- BY FAITH --- Noah preached 120 years
It Was --- BY FAITH -- Noah built the Ark
It Was ----BY FAITH -- Noah and his Family got into the Ark
as Hebrews says
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen.
.....
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet,
moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house;
BY FAITH,
Noah believed God, Obeyed, and built that ark that saved his Family
not some Hokeus-Pokeus chant, and the sprinkling of some water
and not by some Carnal Ordnance imposed on them because of their unbelief
Which was a figure for the time then present,
in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices,
that could not make him that did the service perfect,
as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings,
and carnal ordinances,
imposed on them until the time of reformation.
_________________________________________________________________________
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling,
and to present you faultless
before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour,
be glory and majesty, dominion and power,
both now and ever.
Amen. ::eatingpopcorn:
again - the big mistake and error is that Catholics are infants and not little children who simply simply believe, as is required, and born again at Confirmation - so we see Protestantism is full of errors by adults, posing as true Christians falsely claiming inspiration via the Holy Spirit - wincam
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 14:56:19
again - the big mistake and error is that Catholics are infants and not little children who simply simply believe, as is required, and born again at Confirmation - wincam
OOOoookay. Are you playing with metaphors, wincam? Are you saying that Catholics are *as* little children, like the wine of communion IS (according to your beliefs) the blood of Christ?
If a person, who is able to reason, and decides on their own, due to the prompting of the Holy Spirit to be made right with God, and they make the choice to BE born again; that means they MUST be *as* a little child (someone with childlike faith), I agree.
IF you mean that any child can be brought to a priest, not of their own will or accord, to be baptized and they WILL be born again...I disagree.
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:00:44
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 14:56:19
again - the big mistake and error is that Catholics are infants and not little children who simply simply believe, as is required, and born again at Confirmation - wincam
OOOoookay. Are you playing with metaphors, wincam? Are you saying that Catholics are *as* little children, like the wine of communion IS (according to your beliefs) the blood of Christ?
If a person, who is able to reason, and decides on their own, due to the prompting of the Holy Spirit to be made right with God, and they make the choice to BE born again; that means they MUST be *as* a little child (someone with childlike faith), I agree.
IF you mean that any child can be brought to a priest, not of their own will or accord, to be baptized and they WILL be born again...I disagree.
of course as has already been pointed out you are using the revised version whereas in fact here as also elsewhere "it is not really our's to reason why but our's to do or die" - wincam
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:19:46
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:00:44
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 14:56:19
again - the big mistake and error is that Catholics are infants and not little children who simply simply believe, as is required, and born again at Confirmation - wincam
OOOoookay. Are you playing with metaphors, wincam? Are you saying that Catholics are *as* little children, like the wine of communion IS (according to your beliefs) the blood of Christ?
If a person, who is able to reason, and decides on their own, due to the prompting of the Holy Spirit to be made right with God, and they make the choice to BE born again; that means they MUST be *as* a little child (someone with childlike faith), I agree.
IF you mean that any child can be brought to a priest, not of their own will or accord, to be baptized and they WILL be born again...I disagree.
of course as has already been pointed out you are using the revised version whereas in fact here as also elsewhere "it is not really our's to reason why but our's to do or die" - wincam
What???
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:16:41
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:08:49
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:06:48
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:59:00
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:56:04
Yes it can for infants.
For adults faith is required but for children the faith of their parents is enough. Moreover they are baptised into a believing community. It is then the responsibility, primarily of the parents (and god-parents), but also of the community to bring the child to faith.
And, what if they never come to faith, even when lead, even when taught, prayed for and agonized over? What if they just say, "Nope. Not for me," and walk away.
Are you saying that because their parents had their hair get wet and a priest spoke specific words over them, they are born again, though they live a life without faith as adults?
Salvation is not a one off, forever event. OSAS is a false doctrine.
When a child is baptised they receive and become all that I said. But when they die they will be judged on the state of their soul at the the time of death.
If they commit mortal sin, turn away from Christ, then they will be judged on that.
Ah, gotcha, so they aren't really born again at all...or maybe its that they are born again and die and then have to be born again and again and again...
yeah. Makes sense. ::sarcasmalert:
They are born again (more properly born from above). In a sense they do die if they commit mortal sin - hence the term mortal.
They die in the sense that they lose the life of Christ in their souls. But they can regain that in the Sacrtament of Recoinciliation (Confession/Penance).
As the Catechism puts it:
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
Where is that is Gods word?
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 14:56:19
again - the big mistake and error is that Catholics are infants and not little children who simply simply believe, as is required, and born again at Confirmation - so we see Protestantism is full of errors by adults, posing as true Christians falsely claiming inspiration via the Holy Spirit - wincam
The RC church is the one that is full of unbiblical errors, one of them being the sprinkling of babies.
again - the big mistake and error is that Catholics are infants and not little children who simply simply believe, as is required, and born again at Confirmation - so we see Protestantism is full of errors by adults, posing as true Christians falsely claiming inspiration via the Holy Spirit - wincam
I believe these are reportable comments. Isn't it odd how Catholics accuse us, slander us, and lie about us... Yet, claim they are the Christians. It's almost humorous... except it isn't.
I guess when your debate runs amuck and you run out of valid argument and have no proof of your claims... you turn to this. Sadly. Supposedly brothers in Christ, trying to stone us for Loving God and believing His word.
Cain killed Able... thus the Catholics intend to walk the same path.
Yep
its just the Same-0 --- Same-0
The Child of God refering posters to what God has said thru the Scriptures
Moses and the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs and the Apostles
the other child to what Man has said
My church teaches this
Pastor so and so / Preacher this and Preacher that
Father so and so says
::bowing:: ::preachit::
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:24:58
again - the big mistake and error is that Catholics are infants and not little children who simply simply believe, as is required, and born again at Confirmation - so we see Protestantism is full of errors by adults, posing as true Christians falsely claiming inspiration via the Holy Spirit - wincam
I believe these are reportable comments. Isn't it odd how Catholics accuse us, slander us, and lie about us... Yet, claim they are the Christians. It's almost humorous... except it isn't.
I guess when your debate runs amuck and you run out of valid argument and have no proof of your claims... you turn to this. Sadly. Supposedly brothers in Christ, trying to stone us for Loving God and believing His word.
Cain killed Able... thus the Catholics intend to walk the same path.
you glibly choose to forget that it is the Protestants that are the protesters and have always been so - wincam
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:52:32
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:24:58
I guess when your debate runs amuck and you run out of valid argument and have no proof of your claims... you turn to this. Sadly. Supposedly brothers in Christ, trying to stone us for Loving God and believing His word.
Cain killed Able... thus the Catholics intend to walk the same path.
Quote from: wincam on Today at 02:52:32 PM
you glibly choose to forget that it is the Protestants that are the protesters and have always been so - wincam
Yep, Able was the Protester or Protestant in their day
And Adam knew Eve his wife;
and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said,
I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel.
And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it came to pass,
that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.
And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the LORD said unto Cain,
Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother:
hey Brother; we need to do it Gods way
and it came to pass, when they were in the field,
that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
hasn't changed in 6,000 years
::eatingpopcorn:
Did I not say there was much confusion what and how one is born again. Can you go to your prayer closet and privately commune with Christ. This is a spiritual relationship. I will say again this is a spiritual relationship which Jesus intented us to have by giving the Holy Spirit in the first place.
Jesus often left the twelve to go into a private place to pray to the Father. How did he know he was speaking to the Father? Did anyone else hear him speaking to the Father? Jesus and the Father were one just as we are one with Jesus. When you go to your prayer place and simply believe as a child that Jesus and you are together and that you can talk to Him as one who is closer than a brother, Then and only then you start to understand being born again of the spirit. But if you have unbelief then you cannot be born again.
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 16:15:31
Did I not say there was much confusion what and how one is born again. Can you go to your prayer closet and privately commune with Christ. This is a spiritual relationship. I will say again this is a spiritual relationship which Jesus intented us to have by giving the Holy Spirit in the first place.
Jesus often left the twelve to go into a private place to pray to the Father. How did he know he was speaking to the Father? Did anyone else hear him speaking to the Father? Jesus and the Father were one just as we are one with Jesus. When you go to your prayer place and simply believe as a child that Jesus and you are together and that you can talk to Him as one who is closer than a brother, Then and only then you start to understand being born again of the spirit. But if you have unbelief then you cannot be born again.
He did not give us the Holy Spirit in the first place - you are making this up as you go along[Jn.14:17] - wincam
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 16:02:32
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:52:32
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:24:58
I guess when your debate runs amuck and you run out of valid argument and have no proof of your claims... you turn to this. Sadly. Supposedly brothers in Christ, trying to stone us for Loving God and believing His word.
Cain killed Able... thus the Catholics intend to walk the same path.
Quote from: wincam on Today at 02:52:32 PM
you glibly choose to forget that it is the Protestants that are the protesters and have always been so - wincam
Yep, Able was the Protester or Protestant in their day
And Adam knew Eve his wife;
and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said,
I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel.
And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it came to pass,
that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.
And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the LORD said unto Cain,
Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother:
hey Brother; we need to do it Gods way
and it came to pass, when they were in the field,
that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
hasn't changed in 6,000 years
::eatingpopcorn:
it seems to me that Cain was the first protester protesting that Abel had it right and was approved of by God - wincam
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 17:49:44
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 16:02:32
: wincam Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:52:32
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:24:58
I guess when your debate runs amuck and you run out of valid argument and have no proof of your claims... you turn to this. Sadly. Supposedly brothers in Christ, trying to stone us for Loving God and believing His word.
Cain killed Able... thus the Catholics intend to walk the same path.
Quote from: wincam on Today at 02:52:32 PM
you glibly choose to forget that it is the Protestants that are the protesters and have always been so - wincam
Yep, Able was the Protester or Protestant in their day
And Adam knew Eve his wife;
and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said,
I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel.
And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it came to pass,
that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.
And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the LORD said unto Cain,
Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother:
hey Brother; we need to do it Gods way
and it came to pass, when they were in the field,
that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
hasn't changed in 6,000 years
::eatingpopcorn:
it seems to me that Cain was the first protester protesting that Abel had it right and was approved of by God - wincam
Cue next line:
I know you are, but what am I?
I wouldn't consider Abel and Cain as applicable parables of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Rather, it's simply a brother murdering a brother for staying faithful to God, something that has repeated itself in Israel and the Church all throughout history, including among Catholics and Protestants.
Born again isn't really that difficult. The word literally means born from above in the Greek, and it happens when we call on the name of the Lord. Peter said baptism does save us, but the baptism that's an appeal to God for a good conscience. It made it clear it wasn't the water that did so, so the idea of children being born again by baptism is erred, and the RCC are certainly not the only one guilty of it (looking at you UPCI). People only considers such when they grossly misunderstand what eternal life actually is, you can say it's a relationship all you want but it's easy to say even when your actions shows otherwise.
I wouldn't consider Abel and Cain as applicable parables of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Rather, it's simply a brother murdering a brother for staying faithful to God, something that has repeated itself in Israel and the Church all throughout history, including among Catholics and Protestants
If you read back... I didn't use it that way. I used it to point to "Brother hating/Killing brother", as in the Catholics hating us, . Telling us we are not the church. Implying we cannot be saved if we are not Catholic, accusing us of all manner of things we do not do or believe.
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 20:23:15
I wouldn't consider Abel and Cain as applicable parables of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Rather, it's simply a brother murdering a brother for staying faithful to God, something that has repeated itself in Israel and the Church all throughout history, including among Catholics and Protestants
If you read back... I didn't use it that way. I used it to point to "Brother hating/Killing brother", as in the Catholics hating us, . Telling us we are not the church. Implying we cannot be saved if we are not Catholic, accusing us of all manner of things we do not do or believe.
But to be fair to them, if their doctrine was correct (it isn't but hypothetically) then we wouldn't be. According to Catholic theology, everyone outside the Church is basically damned, and especially the sects that broke off of it. It's simply being a faithful Catholic, albeit erred.
Oh, I am sure they sincerely believe it. But, they are sincerely wrong.
: RB Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 14:26:38
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 09:42:48This Thread sounds just like Nicodemus
You added not one thing to show how one is born again, but actually made the water a little more muddy than they were and still are. The new birth is totally of God, apart from any work of righteousness by the will of the flesh, or the will of man~by Jesus making that statement in John 1:13, eliminating both messenger, and the hearer of the word of God! Can I have a little fun, yes I can......since man is dead in trespasses and sins, and at enmity (not just an enemy, but much worse....AT enmity!) against God, the birth of the Spirit is totally a work performed by God~therefore, man can dead sleep; plowing a field; drinking himself to a state of drunkenness; committing some gross sin(s); making love to her/his spouse; any other thing that may come into your mind, man could be doing, when the Spirit of God purpose to regenerate one of the elect. God alone is the only active person performing this spiritual birth. Truly, think about it~what part did any one person here have to do with their first birth? Not one thing. The new birth is no different. Truly, even after one is born of God, it takes TIME for them to begin to hear with understanding and to see what God expect for them to do. Yes, there is a period of TIME between regeneration and conversion to the truth, without question it is. How do I know this, by the scriptures of truth~the apostles were a perfect example of what I'm saying. For some it may be very short time, for others, longer. You will not find what I'm saying in the SDA movement, you must search the scriptures to see and understand what I'm saying. Selah!
Are there no takers? Mr. Babbler, this was for you.
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 14:52:55
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:46:53
The scriptures say we are born again of water on the Spirit (Jn 3:5, Ti 3:5)
By baptism:
Our sins are forgiven
We are reborn as children of God
We become members of the Church (the Body of Christ)
We enter into the New Covenant
In other words - saved.
As Peter says "Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
1 Peter 3:21
Which sometime were disobedient,
when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,
while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Posters;
Noah, his wife, 3 sons and their wives were not saved by the Water,
in fact they didn't even get wet, the water drowned, destroyed the Antediluvian world,
not saved it
It Was --- BY FAITH --- Noah preached 120 years
It Was --- BY FAITH -- Noah built the Ark
It Was ----BY FAITH -- Noah and his Family got into the Ark
as Hebrews says
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen.
.....
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet,
moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house;
BY FAITH,
Noah believed God, Obeyed, and built that ark that saved his Family
not some Hokeus-Pokeus chant, and the sprinkling of some water
and not by some Carnal Ordnance imposed on them because of their unbelief
Which was a figure for the time then present,
in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices,
that could not make him that did the service perfect,
as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings,
and carnal ordinances,
imposed on them until the time of reformation.
____________________________________________ _____________________________
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling,
and to present you faultless
before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour,
be glory and majesty, dominion and power,
both now and ever.
Amen.
::eatingpopcorn:
Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit says
"eight souls were saved by water"
Jsta Babbler says they "were
not saved by the water
"Who is right - Jsta Babbler or the scriptures?
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:58:02
So then, a baby who is baptized by a priest at his parents request, who grows up to be a murderer, who rejects anything to do with God, was still born again?
Yes.
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:58:02
How does the Word of God back that up?
The word of God teaches us that we need to be born again in baptism (Jn 3:3 & 5)
The word of God teaches us that baptism saves us. (1Pet 3:21)
The word of God teaches us that some sins are deadly to our souls.(1Kn 5:16)
The word of God teaches us that we must continue to remain in Christ or perish. (Jn 15:6)
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:58:02
This is why infant baptism is not a solid doctrine. Because they can grow up with no real knowledge of the Lord and end up in Hell.
Why does that make it not a solid doctrine.?
: kensington Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:58:02
Baptism is reserved for those who truly believe and desire to walk uprightly with the Lord.
For adults faith and a desire to walk with Christ is required. But scripture teaches us that God acts upon the faith of others.
Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:14)
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (Jn 3:5)
Jesus wants children to come to him.
Jesus wants children to have that which is necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven.
: chosenone Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 15:22:10
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:16:41
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:08:49
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 13:06:48
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:59:00
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:56:04
Yes it can for infants.
For adults faith is required but for children the faith of their parents is enough. Moreover they are baptised into a believing community. It is then the responsibility, primarily of the parents (and god-parents), but also of the community to bring the child to faith.
And, what if they never come to faith, even when lead, even when taught, prayed for and agonized over? What if they just say, "Nope. Not for me," and walk away.
Are you saying that because their parents had their hair get wet and a priest spoke specific words over them, they are born again, though they live a life without faith as adults?
Salvation is not a one off, forever event. OSAS is a false doctrine.
When a child is baptised they receive and become all that I said. But when they die they will be judged on the state of their soul at the the time of death.
If they commit mortal sin, turn away from Christ, then they will be judged on that.
Ah, gotcha, so they aren't really born again at all...or maybe its that they are born again and die and then have to be born again and again and again...
yeah. Makes sense. ::sarcasmalert:
They are born again (more properly born from above). In a sense they do die if they commit mortal sin - hence the term mortal.
They die in the sense that they lose the life of Christ in their souls. But they can regain that in the Sacrtament of Recoinciliation (Confession/Penance).
As the Catechism puts it:
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
Where is that is Gods word?
"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." (1Jn 5:16-17)
But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die. (Ez 18:21-22)
kensington and LexKnight,
as in the Catholics hating us, . Telling us we are not the church. Implying we cannot be saved if we are not Catholic,
I wish you were more charitable towards our Catholic friends. Hate is a strong word, and disagreement does not necessarily mean hate. If we are Christians, it should take a lot to hate someone.
As for you not being in the church, please note that we look at the word "church" differently than you do. Ours is based on scripture, yours is the idea that the church is the equal to those who are saved. The Bible describes the church as the entity where you go to find the truth, it has people in roles, it makes judgments. Yours is a collection of people that do not necessarily meet but believe the same thing.
Although I am not RCC, I do know LexKnight that since Vatican 2 the Catholics believe those outside the RCC can be saved. I, an Orthodox Christian, also believe that those outside the church can be saved. Hopefully, you can see why- we define the church in a different way than you do.
LexKnight and kensington: note that winsome has used scripture to back up his points. You may not agree but he should get points for doing so.
: trifecta Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 06:43:54
kensington and LexKnight,
as in the Catholics hating us, . Telling us we are not the church. Implying we cannot be saved if we are not Catholic,
I wish you were more charitable towards our Catholic friends. Hate is a strong word, and disagreement does not necessarily mean hate. If we are Christians, it should take a lot to hate someone.
As for you not being in the church, please note that we look at the word "church" differently than you do. Ours is based on scripture, yours is the idea that the church is the equal to those who are saved. The Bible describes the church as the entity where you go to find the truth, it has people in roles, it makes judgments. Yours is a collection of people that do not necessarily meet but believe the same thing.
Although I am not RCC, I do know LexKnight that since Vatican 2 the Catholics believe those outside the RCC can be saved. I, an Orthodox Christian, also believe that those outside the church can be saved. Hopefully, you can see why- we define the church in a different way than you do.
LexKnight and kensington: note that winsome has used scripture to back up his points. You may not agree but he should get points for doing so.
And you sir respectfully know nothing about who and what the church is. From Pentecost the church was comprised of all who believed and is no less to today. You and your Catholic friends live in an institutionalized authoritarian order that parades itself in being religious but from the beginning it was not that way. The church is born from above and is not of this world as to put any faith in men But in Christ
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 05:58:55The word of God teaches us that we need to be born again in baptism (Jn 3:3 & 5)
The word of God teaches us that baptism saves us. (1Pet 3:21) The word of God teaches us that some sins are deadly to our souls.(1Kn 5:16) The word of God teaches us that we must continue to remain in Christ or perish. (Jn 15:6)
Winsome, I'll debate you concerning these four points, if you care to~but you first must correct this one:
The word of God teaches us that some sins are deadly to our souls.(1Kn 5:16)
Unless you believe that ruling is a deadly sins to our souls?
1st Kings 5:16~"Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work."
Can I start a thread in the Catholic forum on John 3:5? Would you come and debate it with me?
: RB Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 07:34:46
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 05:58:55The word of God teaches us that we need to be born again in baptism (Jn 3:3 & 5)
The word of God teaches us that baptism saves us. (1Pet 3:21) The word of God teaches us that some sins are deadly to our souls.(1Kn 5:16) The word of God teaches us that we must continue to remain in Christ or perish. (Jn 15:6)
Winsome, I'll debate you concerning these four points, if you care to~but you first must correct this one: The word of God teaches us that some sins are deadly to our souls.(1Kn 5:16)
Unless you believe that ruling is a deadly sins to our souls? 1st Kings 5:16~"Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work."
Can I start a thread in the Catholic forum on John 3:5? Would you come and debate it with me?
Sorry - the reference should be 1Jn 5:16. I try to check my posts but typos creep in.
Here are two quotes I posted for chosenone
"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." (1Jn 5:16-17)
But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die. (Ez 18:21-22)
Yes, I will contribute to a thread on John 3:5 - but isn't that what we are doing now?
: trifecta Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 06:43:54
Although I am not RCC, I do know LexKnight that since Vatican 2 the Catholics believe those outside the RCC can be saved. I, an Orthodox Christian, also believe that those outside the church can be saved. Hopefully, you can see why- we define the church in a different way than you do.
LexKnight and kensington: note that winsome has used scripture to back up his points. You may not agree but he should get points for doing so.
And here we have an issue.
Vatican 2 was not a dogmatic council, or at least there is an ongoing dispute within the RCC what exactly it was.
The dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" although further defined with the doctrine of "Inconvincible Ignorance", still stands.
But Vatican 2 has done more that just redefined dogma, she also (IMO) went completely overboard by including Muslims into the Plan of Salvation.
The idea is that some remnant of truth resides in those religions which are not Roman Catholic, but let's make no mistake, Vatican 2 still upholds that the RCC is the only true and valid church.
Now to be totally fair to the RCC, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is not an unknown concept even to protestants.
There are many denominations who at least align to part of this doctrine, and on a broader scale all of us declare that one needs to be in the church to be a disciple of Christ.
The church meaning all believers in this case.
But our doctrinal dispute with the RCC is not rooted here.
Our dispute is rooted in the doctrine of justification, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus simply is the result of the interpretation of this doctrine by the RCC.
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 07:56:26Yes, I will contribute to a thread on John 3:5 - but isn't that what we are doing now?
I did not want to take this thread in another direction~and I did not really wanted to contribute to this thread no more than I needed to do, since the gentleman that started this one, most of the time, well all of time, makes little sense.
There is only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the HS. Every other sin can be forgiven by going to God and repenting.
: chosenone Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:17:16
There is only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the HS. Every other sin can be forgiven by going to God and repenting.
Whom are you addressing and what point were you making/replying to by this comment?
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:20:00
: chosenone Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:17:16
There is only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the HS. Every other sin can be forgiven by going to God and repenting.
Whom are you addressing and what point were you making/replying to by this comment?
Those who are talking about so called mortal sins.
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
: trifecta Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 06:43:54
Although I am not RCC, I do know LexKnight that since Vatican 2 the Catholics believe those outside the RCC can be saved. I, an Orthodox Christian, also believe that those outside the church can be saved. Hopefully, you can see why- we define the church in a different way than you do.
LexKnight and kensington: note that winsome has used scripture to back up his points. You may not agree but he should get points for doing so.
And here we have an issue.
Vatican 2 was not a dogmatic council, or at least there is an ongoing dispute within the RCC what exactly it was.
The dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" although further defined with the doctrine of "Inconvincible Ignorance", still stands.
But Vatican 2 has done more that just redefined dogma, she also (IMO) went completely overboard by including Muslims into the Plan of Salvation.
The idea is that some remnant of truth resides in those religions which are not Roman Catholic, but let's make no mistake, Vatican 2 still upholds that the RCC is the only true and valid church.
Now to be totally fair to the RCC, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is not an unknown concept even to protestants.
There are many denominations who at least align to part of this doctrine, and on a broader scale all of us declare that one needs to be in the church to be a disciple of Christ.
The church meaning all believers in this case.
Both you and trifecta are incorrect to imply that the Catholic Church changed it's stance on "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" at Vatican 2
There was an issue in the 1940s when a Fr. Feeney took this phrase literally as you could not be saved unless you were a member of the Catholic Church. In 1949 the Holy Office issued a letter condemning this proposition.
It also pointed out that in the Encyclical
Mystici Corporis Christi by Pope Pius XII in 1943 also declares that those outside the Church can be saved, as also did the Council of Trent.
: chosenone Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:30:38
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:20:00
: chosenone Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:17:16
There is only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the HS. Every other sin can be forgiven by going to God and repenting.
Whom are you addressing and what point were you making/replying to by this comment?
Those who are talking about so called mortal sins.
I was not referring to unforgivable sins. Mortal sins are forgiveable but as you say one must repent of them. Until then you are seperated from Christ.
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
: trifecta Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 06:43:54
kensington and LexKnight,
as in the Catholics hating us, . Telling us we are not the church. Implying we cannot be saved if we are not Catholic,
I wish you were more charitable towards our Catholic friends. Hate is a strong word, and disagreement does not necessarily mean hate. If we are Christians, it should take a lot to hate someone.
As for you not being in the church, please note that we look at the word "church" differently than you do. Ours is based on scripture, yours is the idea that the church is the equal to those who are saved. The Bible describes the church as the entity where you go to find the truth, it has people in roles, it makes judgments. Yours is a collection of people that do not necessarily meet but believe the same thing.
Although I am not RCC, I do know LexKnight that since Vatican 2 the Catholics believe those outside the RCC can be saved. I, an Orthodox Christian, also believe that those outside the church can be saved. Hopefully, you can see why- we define the church in a different way than you do.
LexKnight and kensington: note that winsome has used scripture to back up his points. You may not agree but he should get points for doing so.
But Trifecta, wouldn't that be considered a compromise to Catholic theology? I in no way would say that those who outright reject the Truth of the Lord will have a place in His Kingdom, and to Roman Catholics all of their theology, Council of Trent, traditions, etc., all of it is the Truth of the Lord, and Protestants and non-Catholics (except some Orthodoxes) surely do reject it. So Catholics believing those who intentionally reject membership of the Catholic Church are still brethren... doesn't make sense to me. It feels like a compromise, a diplomatic attempt. And if their theology was truly correct, then no non-Catholic by choice would surely find themselves in heaven, it's common sense.
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
For Roman Catholics it is a combination of faith PLUS works.
In the protestant view grace is imputed. In the Roman Catholic view it is infused.
For Catholics grace is a cumulative, Protestants reject this notion.
On top of all that we of course have the issue of merits and the distribution of same.
: chosenone Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:17:16
There is only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the HS. Every other sin can be forgiven by going to God and repenting.
Respectfully
Chosen there are a couple more unpardonable sins. Taking the mark of the beast is one and never coming to Christ is another. ::smile::
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Now we have a quandary of sorts with Eph 2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Is this going to be a reasonable discussion or are you planning to continue to deposit ridiculous statements like the above?
You are Roman Catholic and you know very well what is meant by works.
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:44:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Now we have a quandary of sorts with Eph 2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Don't even bother to respond.
Winsome is listing some items that not even the RCC considers to be a work.
He is just being decisive..
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:44:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Now we have a quandary of sorts with Eph 2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
What did Paul mean by "works" in that quote?
And how does that relate to the coninuation of that quote: - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them".
And then:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith
working through love." (Gal 5:6)
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:47:13
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Is this going to be a reasonable discussion or are you planning to continue to deposit ridiculous statements like the above?
You are Roman Catholic and you know very well what is meant by works.
What do
you mean by "works"?
Is it things done by Catholics but not by Protestants?
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:51:17
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:44:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Now we have a quandary of sorts with Eph 2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Don't even bother to respond.
Winsome is listing some items that not even the RCC considers to be a work.
He is just being decisive..
No I am not.
The issue is what is a "work".
Can you not define what you mean by the word?
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:59:36
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:44:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Now we have a quandary of sorts with Eph 2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
What did Paul mean by "works" in that quote?
And how does that relate to the coninuation of that quote: - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them".
And then:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." (Gal 5:6)
You just want to confuse the idea works. Lets say a guy brags through works of moving my mouth and speaking words that say I believe in Christ so I am saved by works ::doh::
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 10:07:17
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:59:36
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:44:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Now we have a quandary of sorts with Eph 2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
What did Paul mean by "works" in that quote?
And how does that relate to the coninuation of that quote: - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them".
And then:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." (Gal 5:6)
You just want to confuse the idea works. Lets say a guy brags through works of moving my mouth and speaking words that say I believe in Christ so I am saved by works ::doh::
Define what you mean by "works".
You quoted from Eph 2:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
But then Paul appears to contradict himself in Gal 6:4
"Each one must examine his own
work, and
then he will have reason to boast with regard to himself alone, and not with regard to someone else"
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 10:01:06
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:47:13
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Is this going to be a reasonable discussion or are you planning to continue to deposit ridiculous statements like the above?
You are Roman Catholic and you know very well what is meant by works.
What do you mean by "works"?
Is it things done by Catholics but not by Protestants?
The RCC is a sacerdotal system where grace is dispersed through the priesthood to the believer.
The carriage on which this grace is being dispersed are the sacraments of which the RCC has seven.
The two main sacraments, through with the believer can "accumulate" grace are the Eucharist and Penance.
For example: When a person is baptized his original sin is washed away and in place he receives an amount of justification, he is now also in a state of grace.
By committing a venial or mortal sin a person can loose part or all of this grace.
He then now has to go to the priest and confess. The priest will absolve the believer and admit a "punishment" of penance.
By doing the penance (and yes it must be done for the right reasons), the believer can now restore his grace.
The believer
works together with God in the restoration of his justification.
In Protestantism no amount of works can contribute to grace or justification.
None of our works is acceptable and all grace and justification comes from Jesus.
Give you an example that makes this a bit more clear.
According to the RCC there is something like "condign merit". If a person has enough condign merits, than God would be unjust not to let him enter heaven.
Now in history, there are people who earned a lot of merits...more than they needed to go to heaven.
The excess merits are not used but go into something called the "treasury of merits".
These merits may be used by the church to distribute to believers. For example through indulgences.
So I can obtain an indulgence by doing something good for the right reason, and distribute the merits to my grandfather in purgatory.
For Protestants this doesn't work. Although there is a "treasury of merits" (if you want to call it this way), but the treasury is Jesus Christ.
Any justification is obtained from Him and through Him alone.
So now I think it is clear what is meant by "works".
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 10:40:44
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 10:01:06
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:47:13
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Is this going to be a reasonable discussion or are you planning to continue to deposit ridiculous statements like the above?
You are Roman Catholic and you know very well what is meant by works.
What do you mean by "works"?
Is it things done by Catholics but not by Protestants?
The RCC is a sacerdotal system where grace is dispersed through the priesthood to the believer.
The carriage on which this grace is being dispersed are the sacraments of which the RCC has seven.
The two main sacraments, through with the believer can "accumulate" grace are the Eucharist and Penance.
For example: When a person is baptized his original sin is washed away and in place he receives an amount of justification, he is now also in a state of grace.
By committing a venial or mortal sin a person can loose part or all of this grace.
He then now has to go to the priest and confess. The priest will absolve the believer and admit a "punishment" of penance.
By doing the penance (and yes it must be done for the right reasons), the believer can now restore his grace.
The believer works together with God in the restoration of his justification.
In Protestantism no amount of works can contribute to grace or justification.
None of our works is acceptable and all grace and justification comes from Jesus.
Give you an example that makes this a bit more clear.
According to the RCC there is something like "condign merit". If a person has enough condign merits, than God would be unjust not to let him enter heaven.
Now in history, there are people who earned a lot of merits...more than they needed to go to heaven.
The excess merits are not used but go into something called the "treasury of merits".
These merits may be used by the church to distribute to believers. For example through indulgences.
So I can obtain an indulgence by doing something good for the right reason, and distribute the merits to my grandfather in purgatory.
For Protestants this doesn't work. Although there is a "treasury of merits" (if you want to call it this way), but the treasury is Jesus Christ.
Any justification is obtained from Him and through Him alone.
So now I think it is clear what is meant by "works".
That doesn't make it clear at all. There is no definition of work there,
Let me give you a simple Dictionary definition of "work":
"activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary
"physical or mental effort directed towards doing or making something" Collins Concise English Dictionary
Under these definitions anything we do is work, even thinking or believing.
According to the RCC there is something like "condign merit". If a person has enough condign merits, than God would be unjust not to let him enter heaven.
::doh::
1 Then Job answered and said,
2 I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God?
3 If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.
.................
20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me:
if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
....
30 If I wash myself with snow water,
and make my hands never so clean;
31 Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch,
and mine own clothes shall abhor me.
______________________________________________________________
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling,
and to present you faultless
before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour,
be glory and majesty, dominion and power,
both now and ever. Amen. ::eatingpopcorn:
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 10:11:45
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 10:07:17
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:59:36
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:44:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 09:24:47
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:57:39
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:47:55
: AVZ Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 08:07:46
This thread is about baptism and it drills directly into the doctrine of justification, whereas Roman Catholics believe baptism is a "work" to justification and Protestants don't.
This depends on what you mean by "work".
Surely all Protestants, except universalists, believe that we must "do" something before we are saved.
No Protestants do not believe that. Salvation is 100% a product of grace through faith.
Believing is doing something – a "work"
Also do we not have to call on the name of the Lord?
"Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21) – a "work"
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom 10:13) – a "work"
Do we not have to confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord?
"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9) – a "work
Do we not have to repent of our sins?
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) – a "work"
Now we have a quandary of sorts with Eph 2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
What did Paul mean by "works" in that quote?
And how does that relate to the coninuation of that quote: - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them".
And then:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." (Gal 5:6)
You just want to confuse the idea works. Lets say a guy brags through works of moving my mouth and speaking words that say I believe in Christ so I am saved by works ::doh::
Define what you mean by "works".
You quoted from Eph 2:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
But then Paul appears to contradict himself in Gal 6:4
"Each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason to boast with regard to himself alone, and not with regard to someone else"
You must have a different translation. This is what mine says in Gal 6:4
But let every man prove his own works, and then he shall have rejoicing in himself
aloneand not in another.
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 10:02:14Can you not define what you mean by the word?
I have been asked to define work, as it is used in the scriptures, and this is my definition of works as I understand works from Paul by reading Romans 3-8; but even better, Galatians 2-5~ after pondering carefully those few chapters. I would give my understanding in explaining this phrase that is used so often by Paul.......
"Not of WORKS, or BY works" to means this: Not by
any work whereby we have an
active part in, be it hearing, repenting, believing, and baptism can plays a part in one being born again....or, if one prefers, to use the expression: being translated into the kingdom of God's dear son, by which one made partakers of the divine nature, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, then fine~yet, we had not
one iota in thought or deed to secure our right to life eternal in the world to come. Again, if we have an
active part in any shape or form, then it ceases to be all of grace~and grace and works
cannot mixed and still remain one or the other.
Romans 11:5,6~"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
: RB Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 12:23:00
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 10:02:14Can you not define what you mean by the word?
I have been asked to define work, as it is used in the scriptures, and this is my definition of works as I understand works from Paul by reading Romans 3-8; but even better, Galatians 2-5~ after pondering carefully those few chapters. I would give my understanding in explaining this phrase that is used so often by Paul......."Not of WORKS, or BY works" to means this: Not by any work whereby we have an active part in, be it hearing, repenting, believing, and baptism can plays a part in one being born again....or, if one prefers, to use the expression: being translated into the kingdom of God's dear son, by which one made partakers of the divine nature, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, then fine~yet, we had not one iota in thought or deed to secure our right to life eternal in the world to come. Again, if we have an active part in any shape or form, then it ceases to be all of grace~and grace and works cannot mixed and still remain one or the other. Romans 11:5,6~"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
If there is nothing we do that plays a part in our salvation then how does God choose who he allows into heaven and who he does not?
Is it a random pick? A throw of the celestial dice?
Jesus tells us that God decides on the basis of works!
Mt 7:
21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who
does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
And
Mt 25:
32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
44 Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
45 Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Do you subscribe to the Calvanist idea that God deliberately creates souls and damns them to hell?
: Jsta Babbler Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 11:54:37
According to the RCC there is something like "condign merit". If a person has enough condign merits, than God would be unjust not to let him enter heaven.
::doh::
1 Then Job answered and said,
2 I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God?
3 If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.
.................
20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me:
if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
....
30 If I wash myself with snow water,
and make my hands never so clean;
31 Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch,
and mine own clothes shall abhor me.
____________________________________________ __________________
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling,
and to present you faultless
before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour,
be glory and majesty, dominion and power,
both now and ever. Amen.
::eatingpopcorn:
Don't concern yourself Babbler, AVZs statement is not true.
It's amazing how Protestants think they know what the Catholic Church teaches. They almost always get it wrong.
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 12:56:11If there is nothing we do that plays a part in our salvation then how does God choose who he allows into heaven and who he does not?
I'll be happy to answer later, or in morning, due to the fact I must step away for a period of time, not sure how long, but you will get your answer quickly, and from the scriptures.
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 12:56:11If there is nothing we do that plays a part in our salvation then how does God choose who he allows into heaven and who he does not?
I highlighted you first step in your serious error of understanding the gospel as preached by Paul. There are no
"if's" about whether or not works play a part of one receiving the right to enter into life eternal. From Abraham on, God began to reveal his covenant of grace to his children that he made with Himself through Jesus Christ, being the
one upon whom he set forth, to fulfill the demands of entering into life, for those whom he elected according to the good pleasure of his will alone. What work did Abraham, or his grandson David, through fourteen generations removed, do to obtain God's righteousness? Not one thing!
Romans 4:1-8~"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works (that is, legally ), he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
These scriptures are very clear that works had not one thing to do with Abraham or David's legal justification before God....only Christ's obedience is the means of one's legal justification. Now if you are wondering how or in what sense I understand this statement of Paul, then ask, no problem, I'll be waiting:
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Before you ask, let me remind you that that statement was said of Abraham many years
after he had been walking with God.
Is it a random pick? A throw of the celestial dice?
I love mockers, it makes my job easier. All God tells us is that our salvation from sin and condemantion is a free gift of God grace, based upon his own will. That's all he reveals to us and that's all we need to know.
Ephesians 1:5-7~"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"
There you have it. Trust me, many more here who are not Catholics will side with you against me. You gave this scripture in support of your work gospel:
Mt 7:21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Really, is this the best you can do? So, you just quote scriptures that
seems to support your position, without giving its sense? All this scriptures teaches is that God's children do the will of their father by heeding his commandments. We cannot earn heaven by doing so, for many reasons, but the main one is that even doing God's will, sin is mixed with our best efforts, in doing so. The law of God demands perfect obedience, or eternal death. Jesus Christ alone kept the law of God perfectly from conception to death, in word, thoughts and deeds, for his seed. Of course, those who are born of God, live a life of pleasing God, overall considered, yet we do not live a sinless life, not even for one hour, or even less!
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
Show me faith with out the works ?
It's about the faith in Jesus ! not your personal works at all because such works are but just filthy rags.
Abiding in Christ Jesus is a work in progress in his Name, not of man at all, It's Spiritual abiding work as in Jesus.
It's Jesus working in you that does the work.
Your works can't cut it.
I think some who claim 'faith alone' have a dead jesus, they are talking of the finished work, as if it's a done deal, just believe and that's all it is to it and bang your saved, you are going to Heaven regardless of who you kill rob cheat rape etc etc, so one fundamentalist so called christian dude informed me.
I said when ever I hear the word 'done deal' that's a new age worldly sales man term of Satan and pointed out that Jesus is just alive today as he ever was.
Nevertheless he claimed that RCC was truly on about worldly works of man, I said that's slander ! the charge of slander never raises an eyebrow to him. ::frown:: true I have come across RC people who believe it is their works they are doing especially the PC ones, but it's not the true RCC teaching at all.
He also mentions contracts between God and man, God does not have contracts, Satan has contracts and does deals, but God is above such worldly things.
: Hexalpa Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 17:03:47
I think some who claim 'faith alone' have a dead jesus,
Well, you think very wrongly.
: MeMyself Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 17:40:25
: Hexalpa Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 17:03:47
I think some who claim 'faith alone' have a dead jesus,
Well, you think very wrongly.
Amen, Jesus is very much alive. He alone has saved us.
: Hexalpa Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 17:03:47
Show me faith with out the works ?
It's about the faith in Jesus ! not your personal works at all because such works are but just filthy rags.
Abiding in Christ Jesus is a work in progress in his Name, not of man at all, It's Spiritual abiding work as in Jesus.
It's Jesus working in you that does the work.
Your works can't cut it.
I think some who claim 'faith alone' have a dead jesus, they are talking of the finished work, as if it's a done deal, just believe and that's all it is to it and bang your saved, you are going to Heaven regardless of who you kill rob cheat rape etc etc, so one fundamentalist so called christian dude informed me.
I said when ever I hear the word 'done deal' that's a new age worldly sales man term of Satan and pointed out that Jesus is just alive today as he ever was.
Nevertheless he claimed that RCC was truly on about worldly works of man, I said that's slander ! the charge of slander never raises an eyebrow to him. ::frown:: true I have come across RC people who believe it is their works they are doing especially the PC ones, but it's not the true RCC teaching at all.
He also mentions contracts between God and man, God does not have contracts, Satan has contracts and does deals, but God is above such worldly things.
You are full of contradictions.
First you start off by saying "It's about the faith in Jesus! not your personal works at all because such works are but just filthy rags."
And then you say "I think some who claim 'faith alone' have a dead Jesus".
So then what is salvation all about? Is it about "Faith Alone" or is it about "Faith ++"?
And if salvation comes through faith + something...then what is that "something"?
You then proceed to say: "Nevertheless he claimed that RCC was truly on about worldly works of man, I said that's slander!"
You may be on to something here because indeed the RCC does not take that point theological. So you score a point there.
Unfortunately you immediately loose that point by making the slanderous insinuation that "they are talking of the finished work, as if it's a done deal, just believe and that's all it is to it and bang your saved, you are going to Heaven regardless of who you kill rob cheat rape etc etc, so one fundamentalist so called christian dude informed me."
Now this whole issue doesn't need to be argumented in detail here, because the issue has already been settled long time ago:
Protestantism: Salvation is by faith alone
Roman Catholicism: Faith alone is NOT sufficient for salvation.
Now with regards to "works".
Protestantism has the view that "works" are the fruit of the Spirit. They are the fruit of faith. It is faith that leads man to good works.
Roman Catholicism has the view that faith and works are separate entities. Both faith and works are separate requirements for salvation.
The notion that salvation, in part, requires works is clearly expressed in the merit system of the RCC.
One can, by living an extremely pious life, earn enough (condign) merits, that God is
obligated to allow a person to enter heaven.
Another type of merit (congruous), if accumulated enough, makes it
fitting that God allows a person to enter heaven.
This is what the doctrine of the assumption of Mary rests on.
Mary did so much, and the angel called her "full of grace"...so Mary earned so many merits that it was fitting for God to take her up bodily in heaven.
It also explains the need for baby baptism in the RCC.
A newborn baby is born in the state of mortal sin. If the baby dies...it will go to hell.
Once the baby is baptized it's state of mortal sin is replaced with a state of grace. If the baby dies...it will go to heaven.
Now this baby is unable to express faith, so the act of baptism or rather said the "work" of baptism earns this baby "points" to salvation.
It is also clearly seen in the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (Last Rites).
If one commits a mortal sin, and one dies in that state, then that person surely will go to hell.
By performing the Last Rites, the state of mortal sin is restored to the state of grace. Now if that person dies he will go to purgatory instead of hell.
Now to protestants the whole notion that one can acquire salvic merits through external sacraments or acts of faith is a violation of the completeness of Christs offer on the cross.
Whereas the Roman Catholic church proclaims that the death on the cross by itself is not sufficient for salvation, Protestants see the death not only as completely sufficient but also as the only source from which salvation can be acquired.
Any objections to what I wrote?
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
The dying man
did something - he confessed Christ as Lord
The thief on the cross
did something - he defended Jesus and rebuked the other thief.
I note that you still have not defined "work".
I gave a definition: "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Under that definiton - which you have not challenged - in both your scenarios they did a "work".
I'm going to leave this business of works in this thread and start a new one called "Salvation by Works?". I think the topic needs to be come at in a different way. I'm busy today so it will probably be tomorrow or Wednesday.
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
By name is not Winsome, but allow me to say this concerning your question~before one will ever enter into life eternal in the world to come,
all of his works MUST be PERFECT in thought, word and deed from conception to death, or, that person will be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death! The law of God cannot, nor will not acquit sinners of their sins, unless a
perfect surety will paid for their sin debt. Praise be unto God, that Jesus came into this world, and lived as the second Adam for the elect of God, and all that he did, was freely put to
their account,
as though they perfectly lived in obedience to the law of God, from conception to death, in thought, word and deed! My sins were imputed to him and his righteousness was freely imputed to me. In due time the Spirit of God quicken his elect, so that they can see, understand and believe the great news of the gospel of Jesus Christ, of FREE JUSTIFICATION through the faith and righteousness of ONE, even Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.
is there any certain number of works one must fulfill.
Yes, the law of God must be fulfilled perfectly before one can have the right to the tree of life, in the new heaven and earth. Thank the Lord God Almighty for his blessed, and holy Son,
JESUS, the Savior of the chiefest of sinners.
Hi RB,
As I said to mclees I'm going to drop the discussion on "works" and start a new thread called "Salvation by Works" later. However I will answer your post now because you have taken the time to respond and it's not exactly what I am going to cover later.
[/font]: RB Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 15:08:29
: winsome Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 12:56:11If there is nothing we do that plays a part in our salvation then how does God choose who he allows into heaven and who he does not?
I highlighted you first step in your serious error of understanding the gospel as preached by Paul. There are no "if's" about whether or not works play a part of one receiving the right to enter into life eternal. From Abraham on, God began to reveal his covenant of grace to his children that he made with Himself through Jesus Christ, being the one upon whom he set forth, to fulfill the demands of entering into life, for those whom he elected according to the good pleasure of his will alone. What work did Abraham, or his grandson David, through fourteen generations removed, do to obtain God's righteousness? Not one thing! Romans 4:1-8~"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works (that is, legally ), he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
These scriptures are very clear that works had not one thing to do with Abraham or David's legal justification before God....only Christ's obedience is the means of one's legal justification. Now if you are wondering how or in what sense I understand this statement of Paul, then ask, no problem, I'll be waiting: For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Before you ask, let me remind you that that statement was said of Abraham many years after he had been walking with God. Is it a random pick? A throw of the celestial dice?
I love mockers, it makes my job easier. All God tells us is that our salvation from sin and condemantion is a free gift of God grace, based upon his own will. That's all he reveals to us and that's all we need to know. Ephesians 1:5-7~"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"
There you have it. Trust me, many more here who are not Catholics will side with you against me. You gave this scripture in support of your work gospel: Mt 7:21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Really, is this the best you can do? So, you just quote scriptures that seems to support your position, without giving its sense? All this scriptures teaches is that God's children do the will of their father by heeding his commandments. We cannot earn heaven by doing so, for many reasons, but the main one is that even doing God's will, sin is mixed with our best efforts, in doing so. The law of God demands perfect obedience, or eternal death. Jesus Christ alone kept the law of God perfectly from conception to death, in word, thoughts and deeds, for his seed. Of course, those who are born of God, live a life of pleasing God, overall considered, yet we do not live a sinless life, not even for one hour, or even less!
When Paul is referring to work in Rom 4:1-8 he was referring to works under the Law. If we go back to Rom 3
For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law (vs 20)
For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law (vs 28)
Attempting to achieve justification by works of the law were attempting to put God under a legal obligation – God becomes our debtor. As Paul said "Now to him that worketh [under the Law] is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" That is something we will always fail to do because we cannot keep the Law perfectly.
However we can receive rewards for work - but not works done under the Law.
You see this whole argument about "works" hinges on a proper understanding of the kind of "works" we are referring to - and Paul was referring to.
"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law" (Rom 3:21)
Yes, exactly – but that does not mean that works play no part. But not works of the Law.
We have to come out from under this legal mindset because we are under grace.
Jesus makes it very clear that works play a part in our salvation (Mt 25:32-46)
You criticise my use of Mt 7:21, but then go on to say it tells us we must heed his commandments. Keeping his commandments is doing something – "work".
I'll leave it there. I hope that my new thread will explain my position on this better.
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 03:53:07
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
The dying man did something - he confessed Christ as Lord
The thief on the cross did something - he defended Jesus and rebuked the other thief.
I note that you still have not defined "work".
I gave a definition: "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Under that definiton - which you have not challenged - in both your scenarios they did a "work".
I'm going to leave this business of works in this thread and start a new one called "Salvation by Works?". I think the topic needs to be come at in a different way. I'm busy today so it will probably be tomorrow or Wednesday.
Well by that definition even going to bed is work.
I have to brush my teeth and flip the blankets.
And sitting in a chair thinking watching TV also is a work because it requires a mental effort.
You are taking the explanation of "work" into the ridiculous claiming that professing or saying something is a work.
Taking all this together, then this is a work:
I sat in my chair, thinking if I picked the correct colors, looking at the painter painting my house and professing I liked what he did.
Yeah...I worked my butt off today.
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 04:27:22
Keeping his commandments is doing something – "work".
Well, I did some great "works" today.
- I did not steal
- I did not bow down to other gods
- I did not kill anyone
- I did not
- I did not commit adultery
Look at that...I can actually do something by doing nothing.
: AVZ Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 04:28:03
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 03:53:07
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
The dying man did something - he confessed Christ as Lord
The thief on the cross did something - he defended Jesus and rebuked the other thief.
I note that you still have not defined "work".
I gave a definition: "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Under that definiton - which you have not challenged - in both your scenarios they did a "work".
I'm going to leave this business of works in this thread and start a new one called "Salvation by Works?". I think the topic needs to be come at in a different way. I'm busy today so it will probably be tomorrow or Wednesday.
Well by that definition even going to bed is work.
I have to brush my teeth and flip the blankets.
And sitting in a chair thinking watching TV also is a work because it requires a mental effort.
You are taking the explanation of "work" into the ridiculous claiming that professing or saying something is a work.
Taking all this together, then this is a work:
I sat in my chair, thinking if I picked the correct colors, looking at the painter painting my house and professing I liked what he did.
Yeah...I worked my butt off today.
Yes - all those things are "work" "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
If you wait for my thread "Salvation by Works?" I think you will understand my position better.
: AVZ Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 04:31:56
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 04:27:22
Keeping his commandments is doing something – "work".
Well, I did some great "works" today.
- I did not steal
- I did not bow down to other gods
- I did not kill anyone
- I did not
- I did not commit adultery
Look at that...I can actually do something by doing nothing.
Resisting tempations can be hard work at times!
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 04:32:51
: AVZ Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 04:28:03
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 03:53:07
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
The dying man did something - he confessed Christ as Lord
The thief on the cross did something - he defended Jesus and rebuked the other thief.
I note that you still have not defined "work".
I gave a definition: "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Under that definiton - which you have not challenged - in both your scenarios they did a "work".
I'm going to leave this business of works in this thread and start a new one called "Salvation by Works?". I think the topic needs to be come at in a different way. I'm busy today so it will probably be tomorrow or Wednesday.
Well by that definition even going to bed is work.
I have to brush my teeth and flip the blankets.
And sitting in a chair thinking watching TV also is a work because it requires a mental effort.
You are taking the explanation of "work" into the ridiculous claiming that professing or saying something is a work.
Taking all this together, then this is a work:
I sat in my chair, thinking if I picked the correct colors, looking at the painter painting my house and professing I liked what he did.
Yeah...I worked my butt off today.
Yes - all those things are "work" "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
If you wait for my thread "Salvation by Works?" I think you will understand my position better.
Well before you do that, let me give you the definition of works as it is meant in scripture.
Works is:
an unselfish act that benefits someone other than yourself.And I would add that some form of sacrifice is required. One must actually give something up so that another can benefit.
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 04:27:22When Paul is referring to work in Rom 4:1-8 he was referring to works under the Law. If we go back to Rom 3 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law (vs 20)
I'll wait, but a couple of thoughts so you can correct them in your thread that you are going to start.
Winsome, I did not know that there are
any kind works, other than those under the law, which can be explained, or defined with these words:
"This DO, and live, sin, and DIE!" So, really your point is invalid.
For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law (vs 28)
Remember, Justification is used in different senses in the scriptures, and never is it used as far a our legal justification
with reference to our faith,
never. You can cover this in your thread as well.
However we can receive rewards for work - but not works done under the Law.
What kind of reward do you have in mind? You may want to address this as well.
We have to come out from under this legal mindset because we are under grace.
Winsome, every child of God has been under grace in the same sense that we are under grace, that has
never changed~you made want to address this as well. For I surely will.
Jesus makes it very clear that works play a part in our salvation (Mt 25:32-46)
Not legally,
only as an evidence, never anything more than that~or, Jesus' life and death was in vain. You may want to address this.
I'll leave it there. I hope that my new thread will explain my position on this better.
Well dear sir, you may want to make sure that your position can be supported by God's testimony, for that's what we will bring to test you with....I trust that you would expect nothing less.
: AVZ Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 05:42:43
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 04:32:51
: AVZ Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 04:28:03
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 03:53:07
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
The dying man did something - he confessed Christ as Lord
The thief on the cross did something - he defended Jesus and rebuked the other thief.
I note that you still have not defined "work".
I gave a definition: "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Under that definiton - which you have not challenged - in both your scenarios they did a "work".
I'm going to leave this business of works in this thread and start a new one called "Salvation by Works?". I think the topic needs to be come at in a different way. I'm busy today so it will probably be tomorrow or Wednesday.
Well by that definition even going to bed is work.
I have to brush my teeth and flip the blankets.
And sitting in a chair thinking watching TV also is a work because it requires a mental effort.
You are taking the explanation of "work" into the ridiculous claiming that professing or saying something is a work.
Taking all this together, then this is a work:
I sat in my chair, thinking if I picked the correct colors, looking at the painter painting my house and professing I liked what he did.
Yeah...I worked my butt off today.
Yes - all those things are "work" "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
If you wait for my thread "Salvation by Works?" I think you will understand my position better.
Well before you do that, let me give you the definition of works as it is meant in scripture.
Works is: an unselfish act that benefits someone other than yourself.
And I would add that some form of sacrifice is required. One must actually give something up so that another can benefit.
And the where is scripture is that definition?
Chapter and verse please.
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 07:01:16
: AVZ Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 05:42:43
Well before you do that, let me give you the definition of works as it is meant in scripture.
Works is: an unselfish act that benefits someone other than yourself.
And I would add that some form of sacrifice is required. One must actually give something up so that another can benefit.
And the where is scripture is that definition?
Chapter and verse please.
Sorry..I thought this was a serious discussion.
Let me know when you are able to contribute with substance.
: AVZ Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 08:11:26
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 07:01:16
: AVZ Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 05:42:43
Well before you do that, let me give you the definition of works as it is meant in scripture.
Works is: an unselfish act that benefits someone other than yourself.
And I would add that some form of sacrifice is required. One must actually give something up so that another can benefit.
And the where is scripture is that definition?
Chapter and verse please.
Sorry..I thought this was a serious discussion.
Let me know when you are able to contribute with substance.
So it is not a scriptural definition as you claimed. It's your own personal definition.
How does making up a definition and claiming it is scriptural contribute to a serious discussion?
: winsome Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 03:53:07
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
The dying man did something - he confessed Christ as Lord
The thief on the cross did something - he defended Jesus and rebuked the other thief.
I note that you still have not defined "work".
I gave a definition: "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result." Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Under that definiton - which you have not challenged - in both your scenarios they did a "work".
I'm going to leave this business of works in this thread and start a new one called "Salvation by Works?". I think the topic needs to be come at in a different way. I'm busy today so it will probably be tomorrow or Wednesday.
Well since you think you have the answer go work your way to heaven. I am also leaving this useless thread and will not be in your next thread either.
Winsome isn't far off, though I wouldn't word it like he did. The facts are the Lord clearly stated it's the one who does the Will of God who enters, and James already said we're not justified before God by faith alone. However, they're not works ad much as they are simple obedience. If the Lord tells one "Move to San Francisco, I have work for you there," and one refuses to because they're "saved by faith alone," you really expect that person to have favor from the Lord? Yes the obedience must come by faith, but nonetheless there are expectations.
: LexKnight Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 11:30:58
Winsome isn't far off, though I wouldn't word it like he did. The facts are the Lord clearly stated it's the one who does the Will of God who enters, and James already said we're not justified before God by faith alone. However, they're not works ad much as they are simple obedience. If the Lord tells one "Move to San Francisco, I have work for you there," and one refuses to because they're "saved by faith alone," you really expect that person to have favor from the Lord? Yes the obedience must come by faith, but nonetheless there are expectations.
excuse me - what has all this got to do with the original post re born again - wincam
: wincam Sat Feb 06, 2016 - 18:06:56
: LexKnight Mon Feb 01, 2016 - 11:30:58
Winsome isn't far off, though I wouldn't word it like he did. The facts are the Lord clearly stated it's the one who does the Will of God who enters, and James already said we're not justified before God by faith alone. However, they're not works ad much as they are simple obedience. If the Lord tells one "Move to San Francisco, I have work for you there," and one refuses to because they're "saved by faith alone," you really expect that person to have favor from the Lord? Yes the obedience must come by faith, but nonetheless there are expectations.
excuse me - what has all this got to do with the original post re born again - wincam
It's related to where the topic digressed. The idea of born again adults explained this way is... silly.
mclees8,
Sorry for the late response, but here it goes:
And you sir respectfully know nothing about who and what the church is. From Pentecost the church was comprised of all who believed and is no less to today.
If I had a nickel for every post like this one, I could buy something nice. Note the total lack of any scripture quotes here. How many books on eclesiology have you read?
Let me start with the basic definition of church - it is a gathering. Are Star Trek fans a gathering? No. They may gather at conventions but you don't have to go to conventions (church) to be a Star Trek fan (Christian). Thus, those written in the book of life are not a gathering.
I like how you ignored my scripture references and went straight to - I'm right and you're wrong. How does the NT describe the church? it has people in roles, it can execute judgment, and it is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Can individuals hold these things by themselves? Does one person judge himself? Do I say I am a prophet to myself and I am one? Does one look only to himself to find truth? No.
Where do you get this view that the church equals those who are saved? Well, that comes from history and because Protestantism comes so late in history they could not claim to be the physical church on earth, so they made up this ethereal church of some nongathering of believers. Look up the story of Arius sometime and you'll see people back in the early days they didn't even conceive of this definition that you insist on.
You and your Catholic friends live in an institutionalized authoritarian order that parades itself in being religious but from the beginning it was not that way.
Firstly, my church is not authoritarian. Then, the church was religious in the beginning. Authority was honored in those days in ways we may find over the top today. But it's hard for us in the 21st century to get because authority is so dishonored here.
The church is born from above and is not of this world as to put any faith in men But in Christ
Your definition is wrong because it has no physicality. The church is born from above--what does that mean? Jesus says to Peter on this *rock* (a physical item) I will build my church. The church is not a concept but a reality that has both physical and spiritual aspects. Under your definition above, it is simply salvation. It's not what the Bible says. Jesus is both physical and spiritual, so are we, so is the church.
That's not true. The Church as Mclees described it is both Spiritual and Physical. It's not simply salvation. It is the Physical beings (men and women) who are saved by grace (Salvation/Spirit)... thus the making of the church is both Spiritual and Physical.
You cling to your Catholic institutional as being the definition of Church. But, Christ is not bound to that and will save who He may. Inviting them to become the Church upon being saved and becoming part of Him.
Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it so. Tis so.
kensington,
The Church as Mclees described it is both Spiritual and Physical. It's not simply salvation. It is the Physical beings (men and women) who are saved by grace (Salvation/Spirit)... thus the making of the church is both Spiritual and Physical.
What you are describing is not church. Mclees is saying that the church is those written in the book of life. You appear to be saying the same thing. You say the people make the church physical and salvation is the spiritual. If people are the physical aspect of the church, then corporations really are people. The church is not just people. The Bible describes it otherwise. Reread my posts for the Scriptural references.
You cling to your Catholic institutional as being the definition of Church.
Actually, no. I've looked into this, read books on ecclesiology (including non-Catholic ones)
and of course, what the NT has to say about it. I've even explained why Protestants cling to this definition of church as an never-meeting ethereal entity even though the word church means gathering.
But, Christ is not bound to that and will save who He may.
I agree with you here. With God, anything is possible!
Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it so. Tis so.
Except that I've used history to explain why Protestants & Catholics say what they do and more importantly, use Scripture to back up my opinion. While you and mclees say that you know better than me based on your own opinion with no Scriptural references and blame Catholicism for my opinion.
Tell me... When Jesus wrote to "The Churches" in the Revelation... was He writing to buildings, or peoples. Was he writing to the hierarchy or those who comprise the church who did the works and sinned and or pleased Him? Was He writing to documents and dogmas? Or was he writing to the congregations of born again people who were the church?
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
that's easy, at least it is for one who knows. one who has
'crossed over' from lack of knowledge / head knowledge - to
heart knowledge.
he was
saved by his belief. God knows our heart and when our heart is open to Him,
God changes it and we are saved. Christ knew the heart of the thief on the cross.
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 03:00:08
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
that's easy, at least it is for one who knows. one who has 'crossed over' from lack of knowledge / head knowledge - to heart knowledge.
he was saved by his belief. God knows our heart and when our heart is open to Him, God changes it and we are saved. Christ knew the heart of the thief on the cross.
Actually the thief on the cross did good works:
He rebuked the other thief who mocked Jesus "But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?"
He acknowledged his sinfulness and asked Jesus for forgiveness "And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds".... And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
He defended Jesus "this man has done nothing wrong."
: winsome Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 04:02:14
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 03:00:08
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
that's easy, at least it is for one who knows. one who has 'crossed over' from lack of knowledge / head knowledge - to heart knowledge.
he was saved by his belief. God knows our heart and when our heart is open to Him, God changes it and we are saved. Christ knew the heart of the thief on the cross.
Actually the thief on the cross did good works:
He rebuked the other thief who mocked Jesus "But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?"
He acknowledged his sinfulness and asked Jesus for forgiveness "And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds".... And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
He defended Jesus "this man has done nothing wrong."
he acknowledged belief in God, identified himself as a sinner and Jesus as King...
sounds like what non-Catholics do in an altar call (or anywhere) when they get saved.
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 06:57:06
: winsome Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 04:02:14
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 03:00:08
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
that's easy, at least it is for one who knows. one who has 'crossed over' from lack of knowledge / head knowledge - to heart knowledge.
he was saved by his belief. God knows our heart and when our heart is open to Him, God changes it and we are saved. Christ knew the heart of the thief on the cross.
Actually the thief on the cross did good works:
He rebuked the other thief who mocked Jesus "But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?"
He acknowledged his sinfulness and asked Jesus for forgiveness "And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds".... And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
He defended Jesus "this man has done nothing wrong."
he acknowledged belief in God, identified himself as a sinner and Jesus as King...
sounds like what non-Catholics do in an altar call (or anywhere) when they get saved.
And he rebuked the other thief, and defended Jesus. You seemed to have missed those. He did all that was possible for him to do in the circumstances he was in.
And before you say he didn't need to be baptised - baptism was not commanded until after Jesus rose from the dead.
The problem with the alter call idea is that it is unscriptural and ignores the command of Jesus to be baptised. 'Altar calls' are typical "I'll do it my way" approach of Protestants.
skeeter,
If you believe that works are not necessary to get to heaven then how do you explain Matthew 25:31-46?
James says "faith apart from works is dead" (Jas 2:26). Do you think you can get to heaven with dead faith?
Winsome... WHY will you enter in to this discussion.. but not answer the simple question "What did Jesus do on the Cross" if he did not purchase us from sin??
PLEASE answer to the comments you stated.
: kensington Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 13:53:14
Winsome... WHY will you enter in to this discussion.. but not answer the simple question "What did Jesus do on the Cross" if he did not purchase us from sin??
PLEASE answer to the comments you stated.
Everything started with Jesus on the cross who became the sacrifice for all - yes, He alone paid the ultimate price. Through Him we have salvation and eternal life, but each of us has a part to play as we go through our lives. Belief, faith and works go hand in hand - according to the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
: Ladonia Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 19:50:15
: kensington Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 13:53:14
Winsome... WHY will you enter in to this discussion.. but not answer the simple question "What did Jesus do on the Cross" if he did not purchase us from sin??
PLEASE answer to the comments you stated.
Everything started with Jesus on the cross who became the sacrifice for all - yes, He alone paid the ultimate price. Through Him we have salvation and eternal life, but each of us has a part to play as we go through our lives. Belief, faith and works go hand in hand - according to the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
1. I didn't ask you.
2. I asked Winsome to answer this as Winsome is the one who said Jesus did not.
Your answer is a moot point since you didn't declare that Jesus did not pay for our sins. Thanks anyway.
: kensington Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 20:05:44
: Ladonia Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 19:50:15
: kensington Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 13:53:14
Winsome... WHY will you enter in to this discussion.. but not answer the simple question "What did Jesus do on the Cross" if he did not purchase us from sin??
PLEASE answer to the comments you stated.
Everything started with Jesus on the cross who became the sacrifice for all - yes, He alone paid the ultimate price. Through Him we have salvation and eternal life, but each of us has a part to play as we go through our lives. Belief, faith and works go hand in hand - according to the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
1. I didn't ask you.
2. I asked Winsome to answer this as Winsome is the one who said Jesus did not.
Your answer is a moot point since you didn't declare that Jesus did not pay for our sins. Thanks anyway.
You know, I find it hard that Winsome could say that Jesus did not pay for our sins as that is a basic teaching of the Catholic Church and Winsome is indeed a faithful member. Perhaps he is just playing with you?
: winsome Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 07:32:21
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 06:57:06
: winsome Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 04:02:14
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 03:00:08
: mclees8 Sun Jan 31, 2016 - 16:06:25
I just want to ask you winsome. How many good works must one do to get to heaven. 10,20 30 100 200 300? is there any certain number of works one must fulfill. Will one work get you to heaven will 300 get you there?
I find it astonishing one who claims to know the gospel of Christ not understanding the basic tenants of our faith
We are becoming like Christ not how much we can appease Him with all our works.
But here is a dyeing man who before passing confessed Christ as Lord as savior of his soul. What do you say? did he make to heaven? The Thief next to Jesus could not fulfill one good work. What was it that saved him?
that's easy, at least it is for one who knows. one who has 'crossed over' from lack of knowledge / head knowledge - to heart knowledge.
he was saved by his belief. God knows our heart and when our heart is open to Him, God changes it and we are saved. Christ knew the heart of the thief on the cross.
Actually the thief on the cross did good works:
He rebuked the other thief who mocked Jesus "But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?"
He acknowledged his sinfulness and asked Jesus for forgiveness "And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds".... And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
He defended Jesus "this man has done nothing wrong."
he acknowledged belief in God, identified himself as a sinner and Jesus as King...
sounds like what non-Catholics do in an altar call (or anywhere) when they get saved.
And he rebuked the other thief, and defended Jesus. You seemed to have missed those. He did all that was possible for him to do in the circumstances he was in.
And before you say he didn't need to be baptised - baptism was not commanded until after Jesus rose from the dead.
The problem with the alter call idea is that it is unscriptural and ignores the command of Jesus to be baptised. 'Altar calls' are typical "I'll do it my way" approach of Protestants.
I didn't miss them. defending Jesus has nothing to do with it. He doesn't need defending.
post the verses w/bk/chp/vs were He commands water baptism to be saved.
the altar call is very scriptural (tho not the RC). call on the name of the Lord, repent - you'll find it all thru the NT (starting with Acts)
they have nothing to do with
'doing it my way' but completely God's way. That it even happens is up to God/the Father. And it's done like that in the NT - at the group teachings of Jesus and the Apostles
when people would hear the word and believe...
now the RCC, that's them
doing it their way... not God's, not by His word.
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 09:59:45
: Rella Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 08:46:50
Your beliefs are not at all surprising considering your Pope said
"Pope Says Having A Personal Relationship With Jesus Is Dangerous And Harmful"
"And that a personal relationship with Jesus is wrong."
http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/ (http://godfruits.tv/pope-says-personal-relationship-jesus-harmful/)
That is a blatant LIE!
Pope Francis did not say either of those things
You need to repent
get a grip! why the huge type size? you think we all suddenly went blind ?
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:18:08
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:54:13
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:18:08
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:54:13
How do you find this to contribute to the thread, Babbler?
OK;
Who are these Wild Goats spoken of by Job, God and David
plz. note:
these are Wild Goats, Not in Bondage too nor the Servants of Man or Men
I think you might be posting on a different thread than you mean to.
No, we are discussing ".. You must be Born Again"
Matt.23:1
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Christ asked Nicodemus
( one of the Tutors and Governors Paul speaks of in Gal. ch 4 )
Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
You setting in the Seat of Moses as a Tutor and Governor of Isreal
and you know not these things
::doh::
???????
Christ had not began his ministery yet
the were no Apostles at that time
SO:::
Where was Nicodemus supposed to learn of this
--- Born Again Experience ----
this
".. You must be Born Again"
Ps. 29:9
"The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve,...."
There ain't no Magic in the Water
___________________________________________________________________
::eatingpopcorn:
are you saying that
Jesus had no ministry or apostles in Matt 23?your posts are difficult to follow. not only in the wording (changing, changing...)
popcorn? really? is your aim to start up drama? I usually skip your posts cause they just don't make sense but thought I'd read your reply to MMM - and it doesn't make sense.
it looks like in the middle part of your post you got confused? maybe it'd be better to eat popcorn when you're not posting?
: MeMyself Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:20:54
: Jsta Babbler Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:18:08
There ain't no Magic in the Water
*Finally* you make your point. Thanks.
ah... that was
the point of all of that?
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:36:10
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:53:15
We mare not reading the same Bible,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
. Tit 3:5
Washing of regeneration comes when one first believes tha Jesus is Lord and repents in his sins in his heart heart. Take the thief on the cross When was he regenerated? You have Jesus locked up in a box of laws.
Washing of regeneration - water of rebirth - same thing.
He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Amplified Bible)
did you just leave the RCC beliefs in the past day?
the 'new birth'/ born again comes from the Holy Spirit. we are baptized into Christ. no water used (the liquid). did you know that water is a sign of the Holy Spirit? What did Jesus say to the woman at the well (where she went to get - water)?
go thru God's word and connect up 'water' with 'Holy Spirit' / 'outpouring of......
John 4
13 Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again,
14 but whoever drinks of
the water that I shall give him will never thirst. Indeed,
the water that I shall give him will become in him a well of water springing up into eternal life."
after the death and resurrection, the baptism of John was no more - no more water
: Ladonia Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 21:15:01
: kensington Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 20:05:44
: Ladonia Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 19:50:15
: kensington Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 13:53:14
Winsome... WHY will you enter in to this discussion.. but not answer the simple question "What did Jesus do on the Cross" if he did not purchase us from sin??
PLEASE answer to the comments you stated.
Everything started with Jesus on the cross who became the sacrifice for all - yes, He alone paid the ultimate price. Through Him we have salvation and eternal life, but each of us has a part to play as we go through our lives. Belief, faith and works go hand in hand - according to the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
1. I didn't ask you.
2. I asked Winsome to answer this as Winsome is the one who said Jesus did not.
Your answer is a moot point since you didn't declare that Jesus did not pay for our sins. Thanks anyway.
You know, I find it hard that Winsome could say that Jesus did not pay for our sins as that is a basic teaching of the Catholic Church and Winsome is indeed a faithful member. Perhaps he is just playing with you?
I beg your pardon, but he did say that... read below...
: winsome Mon Feb 08, 2016 - 04:11:23
: AVZ Sun Feb 07, 2016 - 22:04:12
: winsome Sun Feb 07, 2016 - 14:33:51
: AVZ Thu Feb 04, 2016 - 23:46:57
OK, I will make some time for these questions.
1. Did Christ pay the legal penalty for our sins? Yes or No?
And the answer is....yes! (wonder where you are going with this)
You were the one who called Catholicism legalism.
As the above show it's Protestantism that is legalism.
You have so little understanding, or do you just pretend?
Jesus paid the legal punishment for us, so we do not have to!
If God would judge us by legal means...none of us would go to heaven.
No he didn't. It's Protestant legalism that thinks he did.
Is this a discussion about born-again-adults or is it a discussion on what Jesus did on the cross?
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 00:25:49
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:36:10
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:53:15
We mare not reading the same Bible,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
. Tit 3:5
Washing of regeneration comes when one first believes tha Jesus is Lord and repents in his sins in his heart heart. Take the thief on the cross When was he regenerated? You have Jesus locked up in a box of laws.
Washing of regeneration - water of rebirth - same thing.
He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Amplified Bible)
did you just leave the RCC beliefs in the past day?
the 'new birth'/ born again comes from the Holy Spirit. we are baptized into Christ. no water used (the liquid). did you know that water is a sign of the Holy Spirit? What did Jesus say to the woman at the well (where she went to get - water)?
go thru God's word and connect up 'water' with 'Holy Spirit' / 'outpouring of......
John 4
13 Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again,
14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water that I shall give him will become in him a well of water springing up into eternal life."
after the death and resurrection, the baptism of John was no more - no more water
skeeter,
Just because Jesus used water as a metahor for the Holy Spirit on two occasions it does not mean that you can just substitute 'Holy Spirit' every time you see 'water' in the New Testament.
Try it with:
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is
water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the
water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the
water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:37-39)
Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism with water.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 00:25:49
after the death and resurrection, the baptism of John was no more - no more water
Untrue
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 21:22:50
post the verses w/bk/chp/vs were He commands water baptism to be saved.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28: 19)......... He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
And before you tell me I'm linking two different speeches, they are both from post-resurrection speeches by Jesus to the apostles; both part of instructions to go into the whole world and preach the gospel.
Jesus also said "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn 3;5)
As Peter wrote "
Baptism, which corresponds to this,
now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
As Paul wrote "..
he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy,
through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
I can give you many verses that show that baptism is with water, and many verses that show that baptism saves us.
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 00:25:49
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:36:10
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:53:15
We mare not reading the same Bible,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
. Tit 3:5
Washing of regeneration comes when one first believes tha Jesus is Lord and repents in his sins in his heart heart. Take the thief on the cross When was he regenerated? You have Jesus locked up in a box of laws.
Washing of regeneration - water of rebirth - same thing.
He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Amplified Bible)
did you just leave the RCC beliefs in the past day?
the 'new birth'/ born again comes from the Holy Spirit. we are baptized into Christ. no water used (the liquid). did you know that water is a sign of the Holy Spirit? What did Jesus say to the woman at the well (where she went to get - water)?
go thru God's word and connect up 'water' with 'Holy Spirit' / 'outpouring of......
John 4
13 Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again,
14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water that I shall give him will become in him a well of water springing up into eternal life."
after the death and resurrection, the baptism of John was no more - no more water
skeeter,
Just because Jesus used water as a metahor for the Holy Spirit on two occasions it does not mean that you can just substitute 'Holy Spirit' every time you see 'water' in the New Testament.
Try it with:
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:37-39)
Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism with water.
read the full story of the eunuch -
he believed, then he was baptized in water. and that was prior to the death and resurrection, right?
are you referring to 2 that I posted about water as the Holy Spirit or did you search out water and the Holy Spirit and only find 2?
Titus 35 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, being justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal lifewhere's the mention of water? you don't know the difference, do you?
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 00:25:49
after the death and resurrection, the baptism of John was no more - no more water
Untrue
yes, it is true. you don't know it because the RCC hasn't told you (they aren't Bible believing and teaching) ... and you don't study His word on your own.
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 04:45:42
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 21:22:50
post the verses w/bk/chp/vs were He commands water baptism to be saved.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28: 19)......... He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
And before you tell me I'm linking two different speeches, they are both from post-resurrection speeches by Jesus to the apostles; both part of instructions to go into the whole world and preach the gospel.
Jesus also said "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn 3;5)
As Peter wrote "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
As Paul wrote "..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
I can give you many verses that show that baptism is with water, and many verses that show that baptism saves us.
where does it say water in Matt / Mk verses?
1 Peter 3 - MEV20 who in times past were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21
Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now.
It is not washing off the dirt from the body,
but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
it says that the water that saved in Noah's day is not what literally saves us now. it isn't a literal washing like in the past.
BUT a response to God because of a good conscience that we receive through the resurrection of Christ (when we are saved). no water now ...
it's baptism into Christ thru the Holy Spirit (circumcision of the heart). don't need water. the water baptism that follows is symbolic.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 00:25:49
: winsome Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 12:36:10
: mclees8 Sat Jan 30, 2016 - 11:53:15
We mare not reading the same Bible,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
. Tit 3:5
Washing of regeneration comes when one first believes tha Jesus is Lord and repents in his sins in his heart heart. Take the thief on the cross When was he regenerated? You have Jesus locked up in a box of laws.
Washing of regeneration - water of rebirth - same thing.
He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Amplified Bible)
did you just leave the RCC beliefs in the past day?
the 'new birth'/ born again comes from the Holy Spirit. we are baptized into Christ. no water used (the liquid). did you know that water is a sign of the Holy Spirit? What did Jesus say to the woman at the well (where she went to get - water)?
go thru God's word and connect up 'water' with 'Holy Spirit' / 'outpouring of......
John 4
13 Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again,
14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water that I shall give him will become in him a well of water springing up into eternal life."
after the death and resurrection, the baptism of John was no more - no more water
skeeter,
Just because Jesus used water as a metahor for the Holy Spirit on two occasions it does not mean that you can just substitute 'Holy Spirit' every time you see 'water' in the New Testament.
Try it with:
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:37-39)
Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism with water.
read the full story of the eunuch - he believed, then he was baptized in water. and that was prior to the death and resurrection, right?
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised. Just as Jesus said: He who believes
and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
are you referring to 2 that I posted about water as the Holy Spirit or did you search out water and the Holy Spirit and only find 2?
Offhand I can only remember 2 occasions when Jesus used water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit
- John 4:4-28 & John 7:37-39. If you know of others then please remind me.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05Titus 3
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, being justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life
where's the mention of water? you don't know the difference, do you?
What do you think a bath contains? The word in Greek is
loutrou - Strong 3067
G3067loutron
loo-tron'From G3068; a
bath, that is, (figuratively)
baptism:—washing.
And note it is
"through the bath (or washing) of rebirth
and the renewal of the Holy Spirit"
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 00:25:49
after the death and resurrection, the baptism of John was no more - no more water
Untrue
yes, it is true. you don't know it because the RCC hasn't told you (they aren't Bible believing and teaching) ... and you don't study His word on your own.
Try leaving off the snotty comments. They don't add to your arguments.
The Bible shows in many places that baptism is with water.
Jesus baptised in the Jordan with water, as did the apostles
Later
Peter baptised with water
Philip baptised with water
Paul was baptised with water.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 04:45:42
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 21:22:50
post the verses w/bk/chp/vs were He commands water baptism to be saved.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28: 19)......... He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
And before you tell me I'm linking two different speeches, they are both from post-resurrection speeches by Jesus to the apostles; both part of instructions to go into the whole world and preach the gospel.
Jesus also said "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn 3;5)
As Peter wrote "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
As Paul wrote "..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
I can give you many verses that show that baptism is with water, and many verses that show that baptism saves us.
where does it say water in Matt / Mk verses?
Where does it say "Holy Spirit"?
Baptism in water is what they knew and understood.
John baptised with water
Jesus baptised in the Jordan with water
The apostles baptised with water in the Jordan.
That's all they had been taught.
And that is what they continued to do:
Can anyone withhold the water for baptising these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have? He ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:47-48).
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
1 Peter 3 - MEV
20 who in times past were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body,
but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
it says that the water that saved in Noah's day is not what literally saves us now. it isn't a literal washing like in the past. BUT a response to God because of a good conscience that we receive through the resurrection of Christ (when we are saved). no water now ... it's baptism into Christ thru the Holy Spirit (circumcision of the heart). don't need water. the water baptism that follows is symbolic.
1Peter 3:21 - RSV
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Or if you prefer
1Peter 3:21 -KJV
The like figure whereunto
even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Figuratively because baptism saves us now. That is what scripture says "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (or "baptism doth also now save us" – KJV)
What saves us now? – baptism!.
Baptism with water, just as in Noah's time eight souls were saved by water.
Water baptism doesn't follow. It's in (water) baptism that the Holy Spirit regenerates us; when our sins are forgiven.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
the water baptism that follows is symbolic.
Where does scripture ever say that water baptism is symbolic?
And symbolic of what?
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:47:52
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 04:45:42
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 21:22:50
post the verses w/bk/chp/vs were He commands water baptism to be saved.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28: 19)......... He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
And before you tell me I'm linking two different speeches, they are both from post-resurrection speeches by Jesus to the apostles; both part of instructions to go into the whole world and preach the gospel.
Jesus also said "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn 3;5)
As Peter wrote "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
As Paul wrote "..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
I can give you many verses that show that baptism is with water, and many verses that show that baptism saves us.
where does it say water in Matt / Mk verses?
Where does it say "Holy Spirit"?
Baptism in water is what they knew and understood.
John baptised with water
Jesus baptised in the Jordan with water
The apostles baptised with water in the Jordan.
That's all they had been taught.
And that is what they continued to do:
Can anyone withhold the water for baptising these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have? He ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:47-48).
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
1 Peter 3 - MEV
20 who in times past were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body,
but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
it says that the water that saved in Noah's day is not what literally saves us now. it isn't a literal washing like in the past. BUT a response to God because of a good conscience that we receive through the resurrection of Christ (when we are saved). no water now ... it's baptism into Christ thru the Holy Spirit (circumcision of the heart). don't need water. the water baptism that follows is symbolic.
1Peter 3:21 - RSV
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Or if you prefer
1Peter 3:21 -KJV
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Figuratively because baptism saves us now. That is what scripture says "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (or "baptism doth also now save us" – KJV)
What saves us now? – baptism!.
Baptism with water, just as in Noah's time eight souls were saved by water.
Water baptism doesn't follow. It's in (water) baptism that the Holy Spirit regenerates us; when our sins are forgiven.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
the water baptism that follows is symbolic.
Where does scripture ever say that water baptism is symbolic?
And symbolic of what?
from
your post above -
And that is what they continued to do:Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing
these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?
He ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ.(Acts 10:47-48).
no one who isn't saved receives the Holy Spirit... these people
already received the Holy Spirit...
then they were 'ordered' to be baptized.
they were already saved before they were baptized!
And symbolic of what?symbolic of His death, burial and resurrection!
: winsome Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 13:11:24
skeeter,
If you believe that works are not necessary to get to heaven then how do you explain Matthew 25:31-46?
James says "faith apart from works is dead" (Jas 2:26). Do you think you can get to heaven with dead faith?
what's the problem with these?
matthew 25 - the goats/unsaved to the left; the sheep/saved to the right. the sheep (saved) will have their works tested. even if their works don't survive,
they are still saved. 1 Cor 3 The goats/unsaved don't get their works tested. they don't matter. Belief in Christ (being born again) is what was required.
James - if someone says they are saved but doesn't have works, then they lie.
Works follow being saved. James was teaching to Jews. He explained things to them in a way that those who knew the law could understand.
works are not needed to be saved. They come
after being saved.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 13:46:22
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:47:52
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 04:45:42
: skeeter Wed Feb 17, 2016 - 21:22:50
post the verses w/bk/chp/vs were He commands water baptism to be saved.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28: 19)......... He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
And before you tell me I'm linking two different speeches, they are both from post-resurrection speeches by Jesus to the apostles; both part of instructions to go into the whole world and preach the gospel.
Jesus also said "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn 3;5)
As Peter wrote "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1Pet 3:21)
As Paul wrote "..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
I can give you many verses that show that baptism is with water, and many verses that show that baptism saves us.
where does it say water in Matt / Mk verses?
Where does it say "Holy Spirit"?
Baptism in water is what they knew and understood.
John baptised with water
Jesus baptised in the Jordan with water
The apostles baptised with water in the Jordan.
That's all they had been taught.
And that is what they continued to do:
Can anyone withhold the water for baptising these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have? He ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:47-48).
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
1 Peter 3 - MEV
20 who in times past were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body,
but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
it says that the water that saved in Noah's day is not what literally saves us now. it isn't a literal washing like in the past. BUT a response to God because of a good conscience that we receive through the resurrection of Christ (when we are saved). no water now ... it's baptism into Christ thru the Holy Spirit (circumcision of the heart). don't need water. the water baptism that follows is symbolic.
1Peter 3:21 - RSV
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Or if you prefer
1Peter 3:21 -KJV
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Figuratively because baptism saves us now. That is what scripture says "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (or "baptism doth also now save us" – KJV)
What saves us now? – baptism!.
Baptism with water, just as in Noah's time eight souls were saved by water.
Water baptism doesn't follow. It's in (water) baptism that the Holy Spirit regenerates us; when our sins are forgiven.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
the water baptism that follows is symbolic.
Where does scripture ever say that water baptism is symbolic?
And symbolic of what?
from your post above -
And that is what they continued to do:
Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing
these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?
He ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ.(Acts 10:47-48).
no one who isn't saved receives the Holy Spirit... these people already received the Holy Spirit...
then they were 'ordered' to be baptized.
they were already saved before they were baptized!
And symbolic of what?
symbolic of His death, burial and resurrection!
And thus we see that you don't have one without the other and the requirement for water baptism still exists- symbolic or not.
: Ladonia Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 15:01:48
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 13:46:22
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:47:52
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
where does it say water in Matt / Mk verses?
Where does it say "Holy Spirit"?
Baptism in water is what they knew and understood.
John baptised with water
Jesus baptised in the Jordan with water
The apostles baptised with water in the Jordan.
That's all they had been taught.
And that is what they continued to do:
Can anyone withhold the water for baptising these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have? He ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:47-48).
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
1 Peter 3 - MEV
20 who in times past were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body,
but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
it says that the water that saved in Noah's day is not what literally saves us now. it isn't a literal washing like in the past. BUT a response to God because of a good conscience that we receive through the resurrection of Christ (when we are saved). no water now ... it's baptism into Christ thru the Holy Spirit (circumcision of the heart). don't need water. the water baptism that follows is symbolic.
1Peter 3:21 - RSV
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Or if you prefer
1Peter 3:21 -KJV
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Figuratively because baptism saves us now. That is what scripture says "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (or "baptism doth also now save us" – KJV)
What saves us now? – baptism!.
Baptism with water, just as in Noah's time eight souls were saved by water.
Water baptism doesn't follow. It's in (water) baptism that the Holy Spirit regenerates us; when our sins are forgiven.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:00:14
the water baptism that follows is symbolic.
Where does scripture ever say that water baptism is symbolic?
And symbolic of what?
from your post above -
And that is what they continued to do:
Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing
these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?
He ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ.(Acts 10:47-48).
no one who isn't saved receives the Holy Spirit... these people already received the Holy Spirit...
then they were 'ordered' to be baptized.
they were already saved before they were baptized!
And symbolic of what?
symbolic of His death, burial and resurrection!
And thus we see that you don't have one without the other and the requirement for water baptism still exists- symbolic or not.
yes, they are 2 separate things. being born again is without water (liquid) and is how one is saved.
water baptism doesn't save anyone and isn't required to be saved.
skeeter,
You seem to have a lot of misunderstandings about baptism. However I'm going away for the weekend and I'm already behind schedule so I will have to leave it until I get back and I respond then (unless Ladonia hasm already covered them).
winsome
: winsome Fri Feb 19, 2016 - 05:06:21
skeeter,
You seem to have a lot of misunderstandings about baptism. However I'm going away for the weekend and I'm already behind schedule so I will have to leave it until I get back and I respond then (unless Ladonia hasm already covered them).
winsome
no, I don't have a misunderstanding about baptism, you do. I once believed as you do (when I was catholic). but after being saved (and having understanding) and studying the subject, my understanding of it changed. that was based on what Jesus and the apostles taught instead of what I was taught in catholic schools.
catholics get their 'understanding' from the RCC, CCC, ecfs etc.
: skeeter Fri Feb 19, 2016 - 16:13:05
: winsome Fri Feb 19, 2016 - 05:06:21
skeeter,
You seem to have a lot of misunderstandings about baptism. However I'm going away for the weekend and I'm already behind schedule so I will have to leave it until I get back and I respond then (unless Ladonia hasm already covered them).
winsome
no, I don't have a misunderstanding about baptism, you do. I once believed as you do (when I was catholic). but after being saved (and having understanding) and studying the subject, my understanding of it changed. that was based on what Jesus and the apostles taught instead of what I was taught in catholic schools.
catholics get their 'understanding' from the RCC, CCC, ecfs etc.
I get my understanding from 2,000 years of teaching by the Church that Paul described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15), from the teaching of great theologians, from the teaching of the of the early fathers who received their teaching from the apostles just as Paul instructed (2Tim 2:2), from teaching of the the leaders of the Church assembled in great councils - all teaching the same thing for 2,000 years
Where do you get your understanding from?
From the personal and fallible interpretations of skeeter?
Or do you consider yourself infallible?
Why should I prefer your personal and fallible interpretation over the consistent teaching of the Church for 2,000 years?
You say your understanding is based on what Jesus taught.
Well Jesus said "He who believes
and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
Skeeter says he who believes is saved without baptism
Should I believe Jesus or skeeter?
You say your understanding is based on what the apostles taught.
Well Peter says baptism saves you (1Pet 3:21)
Skeeter says baptism doesn't save you.
Should I believe Peter or skeeter?
Irenaeus of Lyons was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He was thus the second generation after John. He writes:
And when we come to refute them [heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.
(Against Heresies, Book One, Ch. 21 [AD 180])Before him Justin Martyr wrote:"Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn.......The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles" (
The First Apology 61:14-17 [inter A.D. 148-155]).
Before that we read:
Hermas"They had need [the Shepherd said] to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive, for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God and entered into the kingdom of God. For,' he said, 'before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead [in sin], and come out of it alive" ((
The Shepherd ). 9:16:2-4 [A.D. 140]).
And in the 1
st century:
"Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer. 22:13; Is. 16:1-2, 33:16-18; Ps. 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, `Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.' Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (
The Epistle of Barnabus 11:1-10 [circa A.D. 70]).
Should I take my understanding from such as these (among many others) or from the personal and fallible interpretation of skeeter- circa 2016 AD?
: winsome Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 12:54:50
: skeeter Fri Feb 19, 2016 - 16:13:05
: winsome Fri Feb 19, 2016 - 05:06:21
skeeter,
You seem to have a lot of misunderstandings about baptism. However I'm going away for the weekend and I'm already behind schedule so I will have to leave it until I get back and I respond then (unless Ladonia hasm already covered them).
winsome
no, I don't have a misunderstanding about baptism, you do. I once believed as you do (when I was catholic). but after being saved (and having understanding) and studying the subject, my understanding of it changed. that was based on what Jesus and the apostles taught instead of what I was taught in catholic schools.
catholics get their 'understanding' from the RCC, CCC, ecfs etc.
I get my understanding from 2,000 years of teaching by the Church that Paul described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15), from the teaching of great theologians, from the teaching of the of the early fathers who received their teaching from the apostles just as Paul instructed (2Tim 2:2), from teaching of the the leaders of the Church assembled in great councils - all teaching the same thing for 2,000 years
that's a lot of yrs of false teaching pounded into you. btdt, never again. now I go straight to the word of God for my info.
paul wasn't saying that about the RCC. it didn't exist at that time. He was talking about the Christians, the believers in Christ.
if those you consider the ecfs received their
'teaching' from Paul, then what they write would agree with Paul. Paul called the believers the body of Christ,
the 'church'.
It's only been in the last year that I have come across a person saying that one can be Saved before they are baptised and that one does not need be Baptised.
One dude is saying he got saved and then if you want you can get Baptised if you want to.
How he will come up to people and leads them to be saved by going through saying words after him and bang he declares you saved.
That is a load of rubbish to me, I was Baptised and brought up a Christian all my life, now the Baptism did not save me but I was a believer in Christ and seeking Jesus all the time, but it was not until I was Born again that I came to know Jesus was truly my Lord and Saviour.
No one came say that I was Born again or any rubbish like that, but God was the one who did it, just like he did too Paul, I was blown away type of experience and I was by myself and I remember it totally, I knew who he truly is and it's absolute and I can't go back to my position that I once was in, of maybe or of little faith as I have the Holy Spirit now, Christ dwelling in me and I in him. I am still a sinner but I have a handle on it and by that I mean much more control over it. other people may not think so but they are looking at things through rose coloured glasses form a worldly perspective of what they think I should be.
The Saints were not goody goody's who said things that people wanted to hear, they pointed out the facts and I never heard one say they were not a sinner.
I was like 35 yo for crying out loud, it was a process you get Baptised and hopefully you get the Spiritual Baptism and that's the one all should seek for.
Just because you are Born again does not mean that you know everything, but you can grow more so in the Lord Jesus from that point on, it's like a marriage you can't get divorced or you were never born again in the first place.
There is totally nothing wrong with water Baptism at all, as the fact is not all will become born again anyway, and one can still go to Heaven because all you need is to believe in Jesus Christ.
But just because someone comes up saying that they are going to Heaven, does not make it a fact !
Satan would say just that as well, Satan is a giver as well, remember he was going to give Jesus everything ! ::crackup:: Satan only had this world to give and it's not his anyway, as he does not have the Keys, he only has the power to corrupt and lead us into to hell.
Jesus came that he may lead us away from such and becoming slaves to sin.
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:22:51
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
skeeter,
Just because Jesus used water as a metahor for the Holy Spirit on two occasions it does not mean that you can just substitute 'Holy Spirit' every time you see 'water' in the New Testament.
Try it with:
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:37-39)
Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism with water.
read the full story of the eunuch - he believed, then he was baptized in water. and that was prior to the death and resurrection, right?
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised.
Just as Jesus said: He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
are you referring to 2 that I posted about water as the Holy Spirit or did you search out water and the Holy Spirit and only find 2?
Offhand I can only remember 2 occasions when Jesus used water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit - John 4:4-28 & John 7:37-39. If you know of others then please remind me.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05Titus 3
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, being justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life
where's the mention of water? you don't know the difference, do you?
What do you think a bath contains? The word in Greek is loutrou - Strong 3067
G3067
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism:—washing.
And note it is "through the bath (or washing) of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit"
yes, it
is figurative. it's a spiritual cleansing. no water needed.
: Hexalpa Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 17:28:18
It's only been in the last year that I have come across a person saying that one can be Saved before they are baptised and that one does not need be Baptised.
One dude is saying he got saved and then if you want you can get Baptised if you want to.
How he will come up to people and leads them to be saved by going through saying words after him and bang he declares you saved.
That is a load of rubbish to me, I was Baptised and brought up a Christian all my life, now the Baptism did not save me but I was a believer in Christ and seeking Jesus all the time, but it was not until I was Born again that I came to know Jesus was truly my Lord and Saviour.
No one came say that I was Born again or any rubbish like that, but God was the one who did it, just like he did too Paul, I was blown away type of experience and I was by myself and I remember it totally, I knew who he truly is and it's absolute and I can't go back to my position that I once was in, of maybe or of little faith as I have the Holy Spirit now, Christ dwelling in me and I in him. I am still a sinner but I have a handle on it and by that I mean much more control over it. other people may not think so but they are looking at things through rose coloured glasses form a worldly perspective of what they think I should be.
The Saints were not goody goody's who said things that people wanted to hear, they pointed out the facts and I never heard one say they were not a sinner.
I was like 35 yo for crying out loud, it was a process you get Baptised and hopefully you get the Spiritual Baptism and that's the one all should seek for.
Just because you are Born again does not mean that you know everything, but you can grow more so in the Lord Jesus from that point on, it's like a marriage you can't get divorced or you were never born again in the first place.
There is totally nothing wrong with water Baptism at all, as the fact is not all will become born again anyway, and one can still go to Heaven because all you need is to believe in Jesus Christ.
But just because someone comes up saying that they are going to Heaven, does not make it a fact !
Satan would say just that as well, Satan is a giver as well, remember he was going to give Jesus everything ! ::crackup:: Satan only had this world to give and it's not his anyway, as he does not have the Keys, he only has the power to corrupt and lead us into to hell.
Jesus came that he may lead us away from such and becoming slaves to sin.
According to Jesus no one is going to heaven unless they are born again.
being born again is what happens when one has the
heart belief in Christ...
the circumcision of the heart. it's totally different that head knowledge/belief.
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 16:01:40
: winsome Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 12:54:50
: skeeter Fri Feb 19, 2016 - 16:13:05
: winsome Fri Feb 19, 2016 - 05:06:21
skeeter,
You seem to have a lot of misunderstandings about baptism. However I'm going away for the weekend and I'm already behind schedule so I will have to leave it until I get back and I respond then (unless Ladonia hasm already covered them).
winsome
no, I don't have a misunderstanding about baptism, you do. I once believed as you do (when I was catholic). but after being saved (and having understanding) and studying the subject, my understanding of it changed. that was based on what Jesus and the apostles taught instead of what I was taught in catholic schools.
catholics get their 'understanding' from the RCC, CCC, ecfs etc.
I get my understanding from 2,000 years of teaching by the Church that Paul described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15), from the teaching of great theologians, from the teaching of the of the early fathers who received their teaching from the apostles just as Paul instructed (2Tim 2:2), from teaching of the the leaders of the Church assembled in great councils - all teaching the same thing for 2,000 years
that's a lot of yrs of false teaching pounded into you. btdt, never again. now I go straight to the word of God for my info.
paul wasn't saying that about the RCC. it didn't exist at that time. He was talking about the Christians, the believers in Christ.
if those you consider the ecfs received their 'teaching' from Paul, then what they write would agree with Paul. Paul called the believers the body of Christ, the 'church'.
You get you info by personal and fallible interpretation of the word of God.
And because you are fallible you get it wrong.
As I said
Jesus said "He who believes
and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
Skeeter says he who believes is saved
without baptism
Should I believe Jesus or skeeter?
Peter says baptism saves you (1Pet 3:21)
Skeeter says baptism
doesn't save you.
Should I believe Peter or skeeter?
Why should I believe your personal and fallible interpretation of the word of God when it so obviously contradicts the word of God?
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 18:16:33
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:22:51
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
skeeter,
Just because Jesus used water as a metahor for the Holy Spirit on two occasions it does not mean that you can just substitute 'Holy Spirit' every time you see 'water' in the New Testament.
Try it with:
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:37-39)
Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism with water.
read the full story of the eunuch - he believed, then he was baptized in water. and that was prior to the death and resurrection, right?
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised.
Just as Jesus said: He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
are you referring to 2 that I posted about water as the Holy Spirit or did you search out water and the Holy Spirit and only find 2?
Offhand I can only remember 2 occasions when Jesus used water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit - John 4:4-28 & John 7:37-39. If you know of others then please remind me.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05Titus 3
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, being justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life
where's the mention of water? you don't know the difference, do you?
What do you think a bath contains? The word in Greek is loutrou - Strong 3067
G3067
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism:—washing.
And note it is "through the bath (or washing) of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit"
yes, it is figurative. it's a spiritual cleansing. no water needed.
It's a spiritual cleansing symbolised by the cleansing of water in the water of rebirth:
"..
he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy,
through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
It was prophesied by Ezekial:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
In the water we are cleansed of sin
Now, why delay? Get up and
have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)
I believe the word or God – not skeeter.
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 04:36:39
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 18:16:33
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:22:51
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
skeeter,
Just because Jesus used water as a metahor for the Holy Spirit on two occasions it does not mean that you can just substitute 'Holy Spirit' every time you see 'water' in the New Testament.
Try it with:
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:37-39)
Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism with water.
read the full story of the eunuch - he believed, then he was baptized in water. and that was prior to the death and resurrection, right?
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised.
Just as Jesus said: He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
are you referring to 2 that I posted about water as the Holy Spirit or did you search out water and the Holy Spirit and only find 2?
Offhand I can only remember 2 occasions when Jesus used water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit - John 4:4-28 & John 7:37-39. If you know of others then please remind me.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05Titus 3
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, being justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life
where's the mention of water? you don't know the difference, do you?
What do you think a bath contains? The word in Greek is loutrou - Strong 3067
G3067
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism:—washing.
And note it is "through the bath (or washing) of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit"
yes, it is figurative. it's a spiritual cleansing. no water needed.
It's a spiritual cleansing symbolised by the cleansing of water in the water of rebirth:
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
It was prophesied by Ezekial:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
In the water we are cleansed of sin
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)
I believe the word or God – not skeeter.
Your first two references speak of spiritual cleansing
The baptism in acts is act that represents the cleansing of ones sins but it does not mean spiritual rebirth as batised in the spirit. Reading the book of acts shows this and I will give you the scripture next post
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 04:36:39
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 18:16:33
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:22:51
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
skeeter,
Just because Jesus used water as a metahor for the Holy Spirit on two occasions it does not mean that you can just substitute 'Holy Spirit' every time you see 'water' in the New Testament.
Try it with:
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:37-39)
Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism with water.
read the full story of the eunuch - he believed, then he was baptized in water. and that was prior to the death and resurrection, right?
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised.
Just as Jesus said: He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
are you referring to 2 that I posted about water as the Holy Spirit or did you search out water and the Holy Spirit and only find 2?
Offhand I can only remember 2 occasions when Jesus used water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit - John 4:4-28 & John 7:37-39. If you know of others then please remind me.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05Titus 3
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, being justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life
where's the mention of water? you don't know the difference, do you?
What do you think a bath contains? The word in Greek is loutrou - Strong 3067
G3067
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism:—washing.
And note it is "through the bath (or washing) of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit"
yes, it is figurative. it's a spiritual cleansing. no water needed.
It's a spiritual cleansing symbolised by the cleansing of water in the water of rebirth:
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
It was prophesied by Ezekial:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
In the water we are cleansed of sin
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)
I believe the word or God – not skeeter.
That's right! Baptism is mentioned time and time again in the Scriptures and I don't think it would have even been brought up one time if it didn't matter.
: mclees8 Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 08:09:58
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 04:36:39
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 18:16:33
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:22:51
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
skeeter,
Just because Jesus used water as a metahor for the Holy Spirit on two occasions it does not mean that you can just substitute 'Holy Spirit' every time you see 'water' in the New Testament.
Try it with:
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:37-39)
Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism with water.
read the full story of the eunuch - he believed, then he was baptized in water. and that was prior to the death and resurrection, right?
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised.
Just as Jesus said: He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
are you referring to 2 that I posted about water as the Holy Spirit or did you search out water and the Holy Spirit and only find 2?
Offhand I can only remember 2 occasions when Jesus used water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit - John 4:4-28 & John 7:37-39. If you know of others then please remind me.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05Titus 3
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, being justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life
where's the mention of water? you don't know the difference, do you?
What do you think a bath contains? The word in Greek is loutrou - Strong 3067
G3067
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism:—washing.
And note it is "through the bath (or washing) of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit"
yes, it is figurative. it's a spiritual cleansing. no water needed.
It's a spiritual cleansing symbolised by the cleansing of water in the water of rebirth:
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
It was prophesied by Ezekial:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
In the water we are cleansed of sin
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)
I believe the word or God – not skeeter.
Your first two references speak of spiritual cleansing
Yes, the cleansing is spiritual. Our sins are forgiven.Baptism symbolises that cleansing and the cleansing happens in baptism.
: mclees8 Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 08:09:58
The baptism in acts is act that represents the cleansing of ones sins but it does not mean spiritual rebirth as batised in the spirit. Reading the book of acts shows this and I will give you the scripture next post
Spiritual rebirth is not baptism in the spirit. It is when we are regenerated, born again, born from above. That happens in baptism (with water)
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 04:36:39
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised.
Just as Jesus said: He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 18:16:33
yes, it is figurative. it's a spiritual cleansing. no water needed.
It's a spiritual cleansing symbolised by the cleansing of water in the water of rebirth:
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
It was prophesied by Ezekial:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you (Ez 36:25-27)
In the water we are cleansed of sin
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)
I believe the word or God – not skeeter.
no one believes without being baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit.
you might want to read the part in matt 16 again where Jesus says Peter didn't learn what he did except by God.
isn't Acts 22 prior to Paul's time with Christ?
then why hasn't all that sprinkling of water cleansed catholics from their idols?
when your heart is circumcised, you'll know the difference and you'll know liquid water has nothing to do with it.
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 08:25:32
: mclees8 Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 08:09:58
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 04:36:39
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 18:16:33
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:22:51
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 03:40:25
skeeter,
Just because Jesus used water as a metahor for the Holy Spirit on two occasions it does not mean that you can just substitute 'Holy Spirit' every time you see 'water' in the New Testament.
Try it with:
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:37-39)
Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism with water.
read the full story of the eunuch - he believed, then he was baptized in water. and that was prior to the death and resurrection, right?
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised.
Just as Jesus said: He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
are you referring to 2 that I posted about water as the Holy Spirit or did you search out water and the Holy Spirit and only find 2?
Offhand I can only remember 2 occasions when Jesus used water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit - John 4:4-28 & John 7:37-39. If you know of others then please remind me.
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05Titus 3
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, being justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life
where's the mention of water? you don't know the difference, do you?
What do you think a bath contains? The word in Greek is loutrou - Strong 3067
G3067
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism:—washing.
And note it is "through the bath (or washing) of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit"
yes, it is figurative. it's a spiritual cleansing. no water needed.
It's a spiritual cleansing symbolised by the cleansing of water in the water of rebirth:
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
It was prophesied by Ezekial:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
In the water we are cleansed of sin
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)
I believe the word or God – not skeeter.
Your first two references speak of spiritual cleansing
Yes, the cleansing is spiritual. Our sins are forgiven.Baptism symbolises that cleansing and the cleansing happens in baptism.
: mclees8 Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 08:09:58
The baptism in acts is act that represents the cleansing of ones sins but it does not mean spiritual rebirth as batised in the spirit. Reading the book of acts shows this and I will give you the scripture next post
Spiritual rebirth is not baptism in the spirit. It is when we are regenerated, born again, born from above. That happens in baptism (with water)
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offerc him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Lk 11:11-13
We need to ask the lord for His holy Spirit. There are many spiritually minded people in the world, but not of Christ. When we talk of the spirit of God there is but one Holy Spirit and we receive Him when we desire of God to have Him. The 120 in the Upper Room waited for the promise because they desired for God to send Him. Today I will tell you of a truth. One will not know the Holy Spirit To be born again of the Spirit except they truly desire to have Him and Come to Christ in their private place to meet with Christ in prayer.
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 04:36:39
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised.
Just as Jesus said: He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 18:16:33
yes, it is figurative. it's a spiritual cleansing. no water needed.
It's a spiritual cleansing symbolised by the cleansing of water in the water of rebirth:
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
It was prophesied by Ezekial:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you (Ez 36:25-27)
In the water we are cleansed of sin
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)
I believe the word or God – not skeeter.
no one believes without being baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit.
That is ambiguous.
Do you mean that the Holy Spirit has to baptise you into Christ before you believe?
Or
You are baptised in to Christ by the Holy Spirit at the moment you believe?
Either way can you provide some evidence for your claim. Just saying it isn't proof.
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
you might want to read the part in matt 16 again where Jesus says Peter didn't learn what he did except by God.
Why would I want to do that?
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
isn't Acts 22 prior to Paul's time with Christ?
What relevance does that have?
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
then why hasn't all that sprinkling of water cleansed catholics from their idols?
What idols?
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
when your heart is circumcised, you'll know the difference and you'll know liquid water has nothing to do with it.
That's not what Jesus said "He who believes
and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
That's not what Peter said:
Baptism, which corresponds to this,
now saves you (1Pet 3:21)
That's not what Ezekial prophesied:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
You believe your novel theories. I'll believe the word of God.
skeeter you claim to get your understanding from the word of God but seem unable to provide and evidence from the word of God to back up your claims. You just keep stating your personal opinions, whereas I give you arguments backed up by scripture..
: Ladonia Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 08:24:20
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 04:36:39
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 18:16:33
: winsome Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 07:22:51
Of course he believed first, But he wasn't saved until he was baptised.
Just as Jesus said: He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk 16:16)
: skeeter Thu Feb 18, 2016 - 06:15:05
where's the mention of water? you don't know the difference, do you?
What do you think a bath contains? The word in Greek is loutrou - Strong 3067
G3067
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism:—washing.
And note it is "through the bath (or washing) of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit"
yes, it is figurative. it's a spiritual cleansing. no water needed.
It's a spiritual cleansing symbolised by the cleansing of water in the water of rebirth:
"..he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
It was prophesied by Ezekial:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
In the water we are cleansed of sin
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)
I believe the word or God – not skeeter.
That's right! Baptism is mentioned time and time again in the Scriptures
and I don't think it would have even been brought up one time if it didn't matter.
yes, baptism is mentioned many times in the bible. But, they aren't all water baptism (as with JTB). figure out why and what it means.
so, now you are saying that if something isn't even mentioned once in the bible it doesn't matter?
that seems to be a sudden change for catholics. they usually think a number of things not in the bible do matter - like EV Mary, the assumption, co-redeemer, purgatory, praying to the dead saints, indulgences, water baptism required for salvation, the sacraments also a requirement for salvation, etc.
: skeeter Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 18:24:46
: Hexalpa Sun Feb 21, 2016 - 17:28:18
It's only been in the last year that I have come across a person saying that one can be Saved before they are baptised and that one does not need be Baptised.
One dude is saying he got saved and then if you want you can get Baptised if you want to.
How he will come up to people and leads them to be saved by going through saying words after him and bang he declares you saved.
That is a load of rubbish to me, I was Baptised and brought up a Christian all my life, now the Baptism did not save me but I was a believer in Christ and seeking Jesus all the time, but it was not until I was Born again that I came to know Jesus was truly my Lord and Saviour.
No one came say that I was Born again or any rubbish like that, but God was the one who did it, just like he did too Paul, I was blown away type of experience and I was by myself and I remember it totally, I knew who he truly is and it's absolute and I can't go back to my position that I once was in, of maybe or of little faith as I have the Holy Spirit now, Christ dwelling in me and I in him. I am still a sinner but I have a handle on it and by that I mean much more control over it. other people may not think so but they are looking at things through rose coloured glasses form a worldly perspective of what they think I should be.
The Saints were not goody goody's who said things that people wanted to hear, they pointed out the facts and I never heard one say they were not a sinner.
I was like 35 yo for crying out loud, it was a process you get Baptised and hopefully you get the Spiritual Baptism and that's the one all should seek for.
Just because you are Born again does not mean that you know everything, but you can grow more so in the Lord Jesus from that point on, it's like a marriage you can't get divorced or you were never born again in the first place.
There is totally nothing wrong with water Baptism at all, as the fact is not all will become born again anyway, and one can still go to Heaven because all you need is to believe in Jesus Christ.
But just because someone comes up saying that they are going to Heaven, does not make it a fact !
Satan would say just that as well, Satan is a giver as well, remember he was going to give Jesus everything ! ::crackup:: Satan only had this world to give and it's not his anyway, as he does not have the Keys, he only has the power to corrupt and lead us into to hell.
Jesus came that he may lead us away from such and becoming slaves to sin.
According to Jesus no one is going to heaven unless they are born again.
being born again is what happens when one has the heart belief in Christ... the circumcision of the heart. it's totally different that head knowledge/belief.
I think he knows who are his and it's not for me to say at all nor is it of any other person.
People love Jesus with all their heart, who are we to say, or know by pointing the finger at one to say anything like that.
If we were to push such we are then working to undermine a person of faith and that's a work of Satan I would think.
When one's heart believes in Jesus, yes that's one part of being born again as to the Holy Spirit has given you that much.
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
when your heart is circumcised, you'll know the difference and you'll know liquid water has nothing to do with it.
That's not what Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
That's not what Peter said: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (1Pet 3:21)
That's not what Ezekial prophesied: I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
You believe your novel theories. I'll believe the word of God.
skeeter you claim to get your understanding from the word of God but seem unable to provide and evidence from the word of God to back up your claims. You just keep stating your personal opinions, whereas I give you arguments backed up by scripture..
one who believes from their heart has been baptized.
I believe what God's word says, not words from the ecfs, rcc/ccc or pope
no you don't, catholics don't. just posting the cite of some verses doesn't mean they support your false beliefs.
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
you might want to read the part in matt 16 again where Jesus says Peter didn't learn what he did except by God.
Why would I want to do that?
why not read it and see what it says?
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
isn't Acts 22 prior to Paul's time with Christ?
What relevance does that have??
why don't you know? if you don't know, how can you understand the timing in His word?
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
then why hasn't all that sprinkling of water cleansed catholics from their idols?
What idols??
all of those that catholics put before Jesus.
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
when your heart is circumcised, you'll know the difference and you'll know liquid water has nothing to do with it.
That's not what Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
that's not all that was said, is it?
why didn't you post all of it? because it doesn't say those who aren't baptized will be condemned, does it?Mk 16:1616 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 23:05:50
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
when your heart is circumcised, you'll know the difference and you'll know liquid water has nothing to do with it.
That's not what Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
That's not what Peter said: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (1Pet 3:21)
That's not what Ezekial prophesied: I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
You believe your novel theories. I'll believe the word of God.skeeter you claim to get your understanding from the word of God but seem unable to provide and evidence from the word of God to back up your claims. You just keep stating your personal opinions, whereas I give you arguments backed up by scripture..
one who believes from their heart has been baptized.
I believe what God's word says, not words from the ecfs, rcc/ccc or pope
But you are unable to support your beliefs with a single scripture quote.
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 23:05:50
no you don't, catholics don't. just posting the cite of some verses doesn't mean they support your false beliefs.
The verses I post support my true beliefs.
Jesus said "He who believes
and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
Peter said:
Baptism, which corresponds to this,
now saves you (1Pet 3:21)
Ezekial prophesied:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
You believe your novel theories. I'll believe the word of God. You prove me wrong. Just saying my beliefs are false is meaningless.
: skeeter Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 02:57:01
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
you might want to read the part in matt 16 again where Jesus says Peter didn't learn what he did except by God.
Why would I want to do that?
why not read it and see what it says?
It's not what it says that is at question. It's what you think it says that I want to know
.
Mt 16:16 says "He who believes
and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16).
Do you get that? Jesus is telling us that baptism is part of being saved.
: skeeter Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 02:57:01
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
isn't Acts 22 prior to Paul's time with Christ?
What relevance does that have??
why don't you know? if you don't know, how can you understand the timing in His word?
Skeeter, I'm not a mind reader. I can't know what is going on inside your head unless you tell me.
: skeeter Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 02:57:01
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
then why hasn't all that sprinkling of water cleansed catholics from their idols?
What idols??
all of those that catholics put before Jesus.
There are none. And you are trying to divert the issue here.
: skeeter Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 02:57:01
: winsome Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 12:49:48
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 09:41:07
when your heart is circumcised, you'll know the difference and you'll know liquid water has nothing to do with it.
That's not what Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
that's not all that was said, is it? why didn't you post all of it? because it doesn't say those who aren't baptized will be condemned, does it?
Mk 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Sure that leaves open the question of what happens to those who believe but are not baptised. That's why the Church says that baptism is
normative. It's the way Jesus has given us.
However, there are occasions where someone believes but is unable to be baptised before they die. We believe that Christ will not condemn them.
But that does not mean you can just ignore Jesus' command. Those who have been informed that Baptism is part of the salvation process and refuse to be baptised are being disobedient. Being disobedient is disbelief.
skeeter, I have posted many verses that support my contention that baptism (in water) is salvific. I have shown you that this was believed in the early Church.
You seem to believe that just believing is enough but have not given any scripture to support your opinions. You claim to get your opinions from the word of God.
Where in the word of God do they come from?
If you get your opinions from the word of God give me something from the word of God that supports your claims.
: winsome Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 03:33:16
It's not what it says that is at question. It's what you think it says that I want to know
.
Mt 16:16 says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16).
Do you get that? Jesus is telling us that baptism is part of being saved.
So why have all these Catholics not being sure they are saved?
: AVZ Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 05:19:02
: winsome Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 03:33:16
It's not what it says that is at question. It's what you think it says that I want to know
.
Mt 16:16 says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16).
Do you get that? Jesus is telling us that baptism is part of being saved.
So why have all these Catholics not being sure they are saved?
All Catholics know (or should know) that they were saved (justified) in baptism. However the Catholic Church does not hold to the false doctrine of OSAS.
However OSAS, or future salvation, are not the issues here. It's about our initial justification which happens in baptism.
: winsome Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 03:15:55
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 23:05:50
no you don't, catholics don't. just posting the cite of some verses doesn't mean they support your false beliefs.
The verses I post support my true beliefs.
Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
[/b]
Peter said: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (1Pet 3:21)
Ezekial prophesied: I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
You believe your novel theories. I'll believe the word of God.
You prove me wrong. Just saying my beliefs are false is meaningless.
why is it again that you only post the first half of mark 16.16? do you have a vs that says
'he who isn't baptized is condemned'?
what if that vs started out as
'he who is baptized and wears a green shirt'? then follow leaving the shirt out of the 2nd half. do you believe that if someone isn't wearing that green shirt they will be condemned?
if you believed God's word, you'd actually study it and you wouldn't be pulling writings from the ecfs or the ccc or praying to Mary.
1Pet 3:2120 which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body, but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him.water baptism is called the antitype. it came before baptism into Christ. it was before His death and resurrection.
note that it says in vs 21
"a response to God from a good conscience thru the resurrection of Christ". no water needed now.
it's the response of a repentant heart to God.God's word will prove you wrong. you do the reading and studying.
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
: winsome Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 03:15:55
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 23:05:50
no you don't, catholics don't. just posting the cite of some verses doesn't mean they support your false beliefs.
The verses I post support my true beliefs.
Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
Peter said: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (1Pet 3:21)
Ezekial prophesied: I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
You believe your novel theories. I'll believe the word of God.
You prove me wrong. Just saying my beliefs are false is meaningless.
why is it again that you only post the first half of mark 16.16? do you have a vs that says 'he who isn't baptized is condemned'?
what if that vs started out as 'he who is baptized and wears a green shirt'? then follow leaving the shirt out of the 2nd half. do you believe that if someone isn't wearing that green shirt they will be condemned?
Already answered.
Why do you just ignore my answers?
Is it because you can't answer them?
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
if you believed God's word, you'd actually study it and you wouldn't be pulling writings from the ecfs or the ccc or praying to Mary.
The tactic of a loser – divert on to something else.
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
1Pet 3:21
20 which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body, but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him.
water baptism is called the antitype. it came before baptism into Christ. it was before His death and resurrection.
note that it says in vs 21 "a response to God from a good conscience thru the resurrection of Christ". no water needed now. it's the response of a repentant heart to God.
Peter was writing
after Jesus' death and resurrection. He wrote baptism saves you
now Why do you try and ignore scripture?
Skeeter, when you see the word baptism in the NT, it means
with water.
If you see the word baptise, unless it is qualifies as in Mt 3:11, Lk 3:16, Jn 1;33, Acts 1:5, it means
with water.
Peter baptised with water
Philip baptised with water
Paul baptised with water/
All after Jesus' death and resurrection
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
God's word will prove you wrong. you do the reading and studying.
God's word has already proved you wrong. You need to study it more.
: winsome Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 06:26:15
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
: winsome Tue Feb 23, 2016 - 03:15:55
: skeeter Mon Feb 22, 2016 - 23:05:50
no you don't, catholics don't. just posting the cite of some verses doesn't mean they support your false beliefs.
The verses I post support my true beliefs.
Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
Peter said: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (1Pet 3:21)
Ezekial prophesied: I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you.... (Ez 36:25-27)
You believe your novel theories. I'll believe the word of God.
You prove me wrong. Just saying my beliefs are false is meaningless.
why is it again that you only post the first half of mark 16.16? do you have a vs that says 'he who isn't baptized is condemned'?
what if that vs started out as 'he who is baptized and wears a green shirt'? then follow leaving the shirt out of the 2nd half. do you believe that if someone isn't wearing that green shirt they will be condemned?
Already answered.
Why do you just ignore my answers?
Is it because you can't answer them?
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
if you believed God's word, you'd actually study it and you wouldn't be pulling writings from the ecfs or the ccc or praying to Mary.
The tactic of a loser – divert on to something else.
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
1Pet 3:21
20 which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body, but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him.
water baptism is called the antitype. it came before baptism into Christ. it was before His death and resurrection.
note that it says in vs 21 "a response to God from a good conscience thru the resurrection of Christ". no water needed now. it's the response of a repentant heart to God.
Peter was writing after Jesus' death and resurrection. He wrote baptism saves you now
Why do you try and ignore scripture?
Skeeter, when you see the word baptism in the NT, it means with water.
If you see the word baptise, unless it is qualifies as in Mt 3:11, Lk 3:16, Jn 1;33, Acts 1:5, it means with water.
Peter baptised with water
Philip baptised with water
Paul baptised with water
All after Jesus' death and resurrection
why would you expect me to
answer your answers? (maroon bold above)
No, all mention of 'baptize' in the NT does not refer to water baptism.
NO, they aren't
all after His death and resurrection. Mt, Lk and john aren't after either... those 3 are about JTB and
his baptism.
and Acts? He hadn't yet ascended. you'll note in Acts 1 He was still teaching His people.
let's look at the vs in
Acts 15
"For John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
it says that John baptized with water... that was prior to the death of the Lord. that was 'unto repentance', not salvation. There was
no salvation by His death and resurrection yet.
then there's that little word
BUT - that's means something in scripture. He tells us that
He is now changing something. that He is the one talking, means He is still here on earth. He had not yet ascended or stopped teaching.
why did you post that these verses were
all after His death and resurrection?
these things mean something in scripture!
: winsome Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 06:26:15
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
God's word will prove you wrong. you do the reading and studying.
God's word has already proved you wrong. You need to study it more.
no, His word doesn't prove me wrong. it proves you wrong. all your replies above are just deflections from my questions because you have no biblical answers.
regarding 1 peter vs - he is speaking to those who were familiar with the water baptism of JTB. he is comparing that to the baptism into Christ. note it uses the word '
figuratively' and says 'it is
like' baptism (as prev known). which is why we still do the water baptism
as a symbol and proclamation to all that we
have been saved.
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
1Pet 3:21
20 which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body, but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him.
water baptism is called the antitype. it came before baptism into Christ. it was before His death and resurrection.
note that it says in vs 21 "a response to God from a good conscience thru the resurrection of Christ". no water needed now. it's the response of a repentant heart to God.
God's word will prove you wrong. you do the reading and studying.
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 15:33:51
regarding 1 peter vs - he is speaking to those who were familiar with the water baptism of JTB. he is comparing that to the baptism into Christ. note it uses the word 'figuratively' and says 'it is like' baptism (as prev known). which is why we still do the water baptism as a symbol and proclamation to all that we have been saved.
skeeter,
1 Pet 3:18-21
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
We need to go though this in detail because you are missing the points that Peter is making, and also trying to make "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" nullify Peter's clear statement "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
But first you comment that Peter is speaking to those familiar with the baptism of JtB. This is not true. Peter is writing some 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ (and the death of JtB). Moreover he is writing to Christians who will have been baptised with water in Christian baptism. Also He is writing to "To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado′cia, Asia, and Bithyn′ia" not to those who would have been familiar with the baptism of JtB. Therefore it is nothing to do with the baptism of JtB. It is Christian baptism (with water) that he is referring to.
That Peter baptised with water is clear from Acts 10:47-48 when he said about Cornelius and his household ""Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ.". This baptism is with water, and it is "
in the name of Jesus Christ" so not the baptism of JtB.
Now go back to Acts 2:38 'Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins'.
Note:
1. This baptism is in the name of Jesus Christ and therefore not the baptism of JtB (and why would Peter do that anyway). This baptism is with water just as Peter had baptised Cornelius & household with water "
in the name of Jesus Christ"
2. This baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
This is the baptism that Peter is referring to in 1Pet 3:21.
With that in mind let me show you the proper understanding of what Peter writes there.
In 1Pet 3:18-19 (and previously) Peter is clearly writing about the spiritual life and salvation. Bear that in mind. Too many people look at verse 20 in a purely physical way as saving people from drowning.
Peter makes a comparison between the way Noah & family were saved and baptism. The former is the type (or pre-figuring). Baptism is the anti-type (or figure). Such comparisons do not correspond in every detail but in the important points.
Peter says they were saved
through water in the sense of
by water. Just as we are saved
through or
by the waters of baptism.
Peter clearly says eight people were
saved through water. So they were
saved. But in what sense?
Remember I suggested we should be looking at the spiritual meaning. The water (the flood) destroyed the world with all it's sin and iniquity.
Immediately before God tells Noah to build the Ark he explains what he is doing:
"In the eyes of God
the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness. When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since
all mortals led depraved lives on earth, he said to Noah: "I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth;
the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth."(Gen 6:11-13).
And it saves us in a similar way, by clearing out the sin and iniquity in us because baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. As Peter goes on to say it is an appeal to God for a clear conscience -
because our sins are forgiven.
Peter's comment "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" is not nullifying is previous statement, Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, but is
confirming and
amplifying the typology.
Further, it was not only Peter that baptised with water but Philip. In Acts 8:36-38 we have Philip baptising the Ethiopian, clearly with water.
As they travelled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "
Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptised?"
Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch
both went down into the water, and he baptised him.
Just prior to this Philip had been baptising in Samaria. So we can reasonably assume that this too was with water and distince from the batism of JtB.
..once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized. (Acts 8:12).
As with Peter (above) note:
2. This baptism is with water.
3. This baptism is in the name of Jesus (vs 16) – so not the baptism of JtB (and why would Philip do that anyway).
Then we come to Paul. He was baptised with water:
Now, why delay? Get up and
have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16). Having sins washed away is clearly a reference to water. And note the connection of the forgiveness of sin to (water) baptism as noted previously. So Paul understands baptism as being with water and for the forgiveness of sins.
Then in Acts 19 Paul comes across 12 men at Ephesus who have only been baptised with John's baptism. He orders them to be baptised "in the name of Jesus" (verse 4). This, as I showed earlier, is baptism with water.
There are other text that indicate that baptism is with water, and for the forgiveness of sins:
"..let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water." (Heb 10:22
"..he saved us, ......through the water of rebirth" (Ti 3:5)
Thus Christian baptism, as practiced and taught by Peter, Philip and Paul was with water and for the forgiveness of sins. And as I showed earlier such baptism was practiced by the early Church from apostolic times onwards.
The idea that it "
a symbol and proclamation to all that we have been saved." Is a recent invention and unbiblical.
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 05:48:12
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 01:53:18
1Pet 3:21
20 which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body, but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him.
water baptism is called the antitype. it came before baptism into Christ. it was before His death and resurrection.
note that it says in vs 21 "a response to God from a good conscience thru the resurrection of Christ". no water needed now. it's the response of a repentant heart to God.
God's word will prove you wrong. you do the reading and studying.
: skeeter Wed Feb 24, 2016 - 15:33:51
regarding 1 peter vs - he is speaking to those who were familiar with the water baptism of JTB. he is comparing that to the baptism into Christ. note it uses the word 'figuratively' and says 'it is like' baptism (as prev known). which is why we still do the water baptism as a symbol and proclamation to all that we have been saved.
skeeter,
1 Pet 3:18-21
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
We need to go though this in detail because you are missing the points that Peter is making, and also trying to make "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" nullify Peter's clear statement "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
But first you comment that Peter is speaking to those familiar with the baptism of JtB. This is not true. Peter is writing some 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ (and the death of JtB). Moreover he is writing to Christians who will have been baptised with water in Christian baptism. Also He is writing to "To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado′cia, Asia, and Bithyn′ia" not to those who would have been familiar with the baptism of JtB. Therefore it is nothing to do with the baptism of JtB. It is Christian baptism (with water) that he is referring to.
That Peter baptised with water is clear from Acts 10:47-48 when he said about Cornelius and his household ""Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ.". This baptism is with water, and it is "in the name of Jesus Christ" so not the baptism of JtB.
Now go back to Acts 2:38 'Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins'.
Note:
1. This baptism is in the name of Jesus Christ and therefore not the baptism of JtB (and why would Peter do that anyway). This baptism is with water just as Peter had baptised Cornelius & household with water "in the name of Jesus Christ"
2. This baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
This is the baptism that Peter is referring to in 1Pet 3:21.
With that in mind let me show you the proper understanding of what Peter writes there.
In 1Pet 3:18-19 (and previously) Peter is clearly writing about the spiritual life and salvation. Bear that in mind. Too many people look at verse 20 in a purely physical way as saving people from drowning.
Peter makes a comparison between the way Noah & family were saved and baptism. The former is the type (or pre-figuring). Baptism is the anti-type (or figure). Such comparisons do not correspond in every detail but in the important points.
Peter says they were saved through water in the sense of by water. Just as we are saved through or by the waters of baptism.
Peter clearly says eight people were saved through water. So they were saved. But in what sense?
Remember I suggested we should be looking at the spiritual meaning. The water (the flood) destroyed the world with all it's sin and iniquity.
Immediately before God tells Noah to build the Ark he explains what he is doing:
"In the eyes of God the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness. When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals led depraved lives on earth, he said to Noah: "I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth."(Gen 6:11-13).
And it saves us in a similar way, by clearing out the sin and iniquity in us because baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. As Peter goes on to say it is an appeal to God for a clear conscience - because our sins are forgiven.
Peter's comment "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" is not nullifying is previous statement, Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, but is confirming and amplifying the typology.
Further, it was not only Peter that baptised with water but Philip. In Acts 8:36-38 we have Philip baptising the Ethiopian, clearly with water.
As they travelled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptised?"
Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptised him.
Just prior to this Philip had been baptising in Samaria. So we can reasonably assume that this too was with water and distince from the batism of JtB.
..once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized. (Acts 8:12).
As with Peter (above) note:
2. This baptism is with water.
3. This baptism is in the name of Jesus (vs 16) – so not the baptism of JtB (and why would Philip do that anyway).
Then we come to Paul. He was baptised with water:
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16). Having sins washed away is clearly a reference to water. And note the connection of the forgiveness of sin to (water) baptism as noted previously. So Paul understands baptism as being with water and for the forgiveness of sins.
Then in Acts 19 Paul comes across 12 men at Ephesus who have only been baptised with John's baptism. He orders them to be baptised "in the name of Jesus" (verse 4). This, as I showed earlier, is baptism with water.
There are other text that indicate that baptism is with water, and for the forgiveness of sins:
"..let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water." (Heb 10:22
"..he saved us, ......through the water of rebirth" (Ti 3:5)
Thus Christian baptism, as practiced and taught by Peter, Philip and Paul was with water and for the forgiveness of sins. And as I showed earlier such baptism was practiced by the early Church from apostolic times onwards.
The idea that it "a symbol and proclamation to all that we have been saved." Is a recent invention and unbiblical.
A recent invention? Yes, I agree. It is certainly true that our friends who are adherents of other Christian sects do that all the time with the things that are mentioned in the Scriptures.
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 05:48:12
skeeter,
1 Pet 3:18-21
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
We need to go though this in detail because you are missing the points that Peter is making, and also trying to make "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" nullify Peter's clear statement "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
But first you comment that Peter is speaking to those familiar with the baptism of JtB. This is not true. Peter is writing some 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ (and the death of JtB). Moreover he is writing to Christians who will have been baptised with water in Christian baptism. Also He is writing to "To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado′cia, Asia, and Bithyn′ia" not to those who would have been familiar with the baptism of JtB. Therefore it is nothing to do with the baptism of JtB. It is Christian baptism (with water) that he is referring to.
That Peter baptised with water is clear from Acts 10:47-48 when he said about Cornelius and his household ""Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ.". This baptism is with water, and it is "in the name of Jesus Christ" so not the baptism of JtB.
...
and
again,
if they've already received the Holy Spirit,
they are already saved.
: skeeter Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 12:18:40
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 05:48:12
skeeter,
1 Pet 3:18-21
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
We need to go though this in detail because you are missing the points that Peter is making, and also trying to make "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" nullify Peter's clear statement "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
But first you comment that Peter is speaking to those familiar with the baptism of JtB. This is not true. Peter is writing some 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ (and the death of JtB). Moreover he is writing to Christians who will have been baptised with water in Christian baptism. Also He is writing to "To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado′cia, Asia, and Bithyn′ia" not to those who would have been familiar with the baptism of JtB. Therefore it is nothing to do with the baptism of JtB. It is Christian baptism (with water) that he is referring to.
That Peter baptised with water is clear from Acts 10:47-48 when he said about Cornelius and his household ""Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ.". This baptism is with water, and it is "in the name of Jesus Christ" so not the baptism of JtB.
...
and again, if they've already received the Holy Spirit, they are already saved.
Skeeter,
My post covered:
a) a proper understanding of the typology of 1 Pet 3:20-21
b) a demonstration that 'baptism' in the New Testament is baptism with water.
It also demonstrated that Peter, Philip and Paul practiced baptism with water, and
that baptism (which we may call
Christian baptism) was
in the name of Jesus and
for the forgiveness of sins.
It was not concerned with how, why or when Cornelius was saved.
If you accept my explanation of 1Pet 3:20-21, and accept my points about baptism with water, and Christian baptism
then we can move on to Cornelius.
If not then please explain what you consider in error in my explanation rather than jumping off into another topic.
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 15:41:34
: skeeter Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 12:18:40
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 05:48:12
skeeter,
1 Pet 3:18-21
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
We need to go though this in detail because you are missing the points that Peter is making, and also trying to make "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" nullify Peter's clear statement "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
But first you comment that Peter is speaking to those familiar with the baptism of JtB. This is not true. Peter is writing some 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ (and the death of JtB). Moreover he is writing to Christians who will have been baptised with water in Christian baptism. Also He is writing to "To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado′cia, Asia, and Bithyn′ia" not to those who would have been familiar with the baptism of JtB. Therefore it is nothing to do with the baptism of JtB. It is Christian baptism (with water) that he is referring to.
That Peter baptised with water is clear from Acts 10:47-48 when he said about Cornelius and his household ""Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ.". This baptism is with water, and it is "in the name of Jesus Christ" so not the baptism of JtB.
...
and again, if they've already received the Holy Spirit, they are already saved.
Skeeter,
My post covered:
a) a proper understanding of the typology of 1 Pet 3:20-21
b) a demonstration that 'baptism' in the New Testament is baptism with water.
It also demonstrated that Peter, Philip and Paul practiced baptism with water, and that baptism (which we may call Christian baptism) was in the name of Jesus and for the forgiveness of sins.
It was not concerned with how, why or when Cornelius was saved.
If you accept my explanation of 1Pet 3:20-21, and accept my points about baptism with water, and Christian baptism then we can move on to Cornelius.
If not then please explain what you consider in error in my explanation rather than jumping off into another topic.
Skeeter is right. The Gospel has to have already been preached to them and received the gift of salvation with a heart already stirred to repentance even before they follow the command to be water Baptized
You truly don't understand the love and compassion of Christ in this matter by the one who knows the heart of all men. You legalists put Christ into your box of laws and rules and keep the keys of it.
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 15:41:34
: skeeter Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 12:18:40
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 05:48:12
skeeter,
1 Pet 3:18-21
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
We need to go though this in detail because you are missing the points that Peter is making, and also trying to make "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" nullify Peter's clear statement "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
But first you comment that Peter is speaking to those familiar with the baptism of JtB. This is not true. Peter is writing some 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ (and the death of JtB). Moreover he is writing to Christians who will have been baptised with water in Christian baptism. Also He is writing to "To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado′cia, Asia, and Bithyn′ia" not to those who would have been familiar with the baptism of JtB. Therefore it is nothing to do with the baptism of JtB. It is Christian baptism (with water) that he is referring to.
That Peter baptised with water is clear from Acts 10:47-48 when he said about Cornelius and his household ""Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ.". This baptism is with water, and it is "in the name of Jesus Christ" so not the baptism of JtB.
...
and again, if they've already received the Holy Spirit, they are already saved.
Skeeter,
My post covered:
a) a proper understanding of the typology of 1 Pet 3:20-21
b) a demonstration that 'baptism' in the New Testament is baptism with water.
It also demonstrated that Peter, Philip and Paul practiced baptism with water, and that baptism (which we may call Christian baptism) was in the name of Jesus and for the forgiveness of sins.
It was not concerned with how, why or when Cornelius was saved.
If you accept my explanation of 1Pet 3:20-21, and accept my points about baptism with water, and Christian baptism then we can move on to Cornelius.
If not then please explain what you consider in error in my explanation rather than jumping off into another topic.
well, I surely don't agree with you and I've posted that several times. is there something
else you're not understanding? like the Holy Spirit doesn't just descend on the unsaved? unless it is to save them...
you didn't even make it thru the verse(s) on Peter...
before you post about Paul, you might want to read
what he does say about it.
: skeeter Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 19:05:04
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 15:41:34
: skeeter Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 12:18:40
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 05:48:12
skeeter,
1 Pet 3:18-21
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
We need to go though this in detail because you are missing the points that Peter is making, and also trying to make "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" nullify Peter's clear statement "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you"
But first you comment that Peter is speaking to those familiar with the baptism of JtB. This is not true. Peter is writing some 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ (and the death of JtB). Moreover he is writing to Christians who will have been baptised with water in Christian baptism. Also He is writing to "To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado′cia, Asia, and Bithyn′ia" not to those who would have been familiar with the baptism of JtB. Therefore it is nothing to do with the baptism of JtB. It is Christian baptism (with water) that he is referring to.
That Peter baptised with water is clear from Acts 10:47-48 when he said about Cornelius and his household ""Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ.". This baptism is with water, and it is "in the name of Jesus Christ" so not the baptism of JtB.
...
and again, if they've already received the Holy Spirit, they are already saved.
Skeeter,
My post covered:
a) a proper understanding of the typology of 1 Pet 3:20-21
b) a demonstration that 'baptism' in the New Testament is baptism with water.
It also demonstrated that Peter, Philip and Paul practiced baptism with water, and that baptism (which we may call Christian baptism) was in the name of Jesus and for the forgiveness of sins.
It was not concerned with how, why or when Cornelius was saved.
If you accept my explanation of 1Pet 3:20-21, and accept my points about baptism with water, and Christian baptism then we can move on to Cornelius.
If not then please explain what you consider in error in my explanation rather than jumping off into another topic.
well, I surely don't agree with you and I've posted that several times. is there something else you're not understanding? like the Holy Spirit doesn't just descend on the unsaved? unless it is to save them...
you didn't even make it thru the verse(s) on Peter...
before you post about Paul, you might want to read what he does say about it.
You are just prevaricating. I gave you a clear argument taking you through scripture. You haven't answered my points before because I haven't posted a detailed explanation before.
The truth is that you have no answer. First you try and divert off into a different topic rather than answer. Now you prevaricate and just say you don't agree.
: mclees8 Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 16:13:32
You truly don't understand the love and compassion of Christ in this matter by the one who knows the heart of all men. You legalists put Christ into your box of laws and rules and keep the keys of it.
Have you anything constructive to add to this discussion or are you just here to throw insults around?
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 05:20:47
: skeeter Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 19:05:04
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 15:41:34
Skeeter,
My post covered:
a) a proper understanding of the typology of 1 Pet 3:20-21
b) a demonstration that 'baptism' in the New Testament is baptism with water.
It also demonstrated that Peter, Philip and Paul practiced baptism with water, and that baptism (which we may call Christian baptism) was in the name of Jesus and for the forgiveness of sins.
It was not concerned with how, why or when Cornelius was saved.
If you accept my explanation of 1Pet 3:20-21, and accept my points about baptism with water, and Christian baptism then we can move on to Cornelius.
If not then please explain what you consider in error in my explanation rather than jumping off into another topic.
well, I surely don't agree with you and I've posted that several times. is there something else you're not understanding? like the Holy Spirit doesn't just descend on the unsaved? unless it is to save them...
you didn't even make it thru the verse(s) on Peter...
before you post about Paul, you might want to read what he does say about it.
You are just prevaricating.
I gave you a clear argument taking you through scripture. You haven't answered my points before because I haven't posted a detailed explanation before.
The truth is that you have no answer. First you try and divert off into a different topic rather than answer. Now you prevaricate and just say you don't agree.
no real reply from you? you accuse me of being evasive? or were you flat out calling me a liar?
you gave a clear argument? clear as mud - and wrong.
why do you think I need
detailed info from you on it? I'm not new to this topic. you haven't posted some great revelation on it.
what different topic did I divert to?
darn toot'n I don't agree with false teaching!
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 05:31:43
: mclees8 Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 16:13:32
You truly don't understand the love and compassion of Christ in this matter by the one who knows the heart of all men. You legalists put Christ into your box of laws and rules and keep the keys of it.
Have you anything constructive to add to this discussion or are you just here to throw insults around?
the one here that I see being insulting, is you.
: skeeter Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 06:37:29
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 05:20:47
: skeeter Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 19:05:04
: winsome Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 15:41:34
Skeeter,
My post covered:
a) a proper understanding of the typology of 1 Pet 3:20-21
b) a demonstration that 'baptism' in the New Testament is baptism with water.
It also demonstrated that Peter, Philip and Paul practiced baptism with water, and that baptism (which we may call Christian baptism) was in the name of Jesus and for the forgiveness of sins.
It was not concerned with how, why or when Cornelius was saved.
If you accept my explanation of 1Pet 3:20-21, and accept my points about baptism with water, and Christian baptism then we can move on to Cornelius.
If not then please explain what you consider in error in my explanation rather than jumping off into another topic.
well, I surely don't agree with you and I've posted that several times. is there something else you're not understanding? like the Holy Spirit doesn't just descend on the unsaved? unless it is to save them...
you didn't even make it thru the verse(s) on Peter...
before you post about Paul, you might want to read what he does say about it.
You are just prevaricating.
I gave you a clear argument taking you through scripture. You haven't answered my points before because I haven't posted a detailed explanation before.
The truth is that you have no answer. First you try and divert off into a different topic rather than answer. Now you prevaricate and just say you don't agree.
no real reply from you? you accuse me of being evasive? or were you flat out calling me a liar?
you gave a clear argument? clear as mud - and wrong.
why do you think I need detailed info from you on it? I'm not new to this topic. you haven't posted some great revelation on it.
what different topic did I divert to?
darn toot'n I don't agree with false teaching!
Ok, I get the message. You have no intention of discussing the topic.
God bless
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 05:31:43
: mclees8 Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 16:13:32
You truly don't understand the love and compassion of Christ in this matter by the one who knows the heart of all men. You legalists put Christ into your box of laws and rules and keep the keys of it.
Have you anything constructive to add to this discussion or are you just here to throw insults around?
Im sorry if you are offended but I said the truth. You are a legalist but you are not alone, your comrades here are legalists also. Your church is legalist. Your interpretations come from legalist theology and thinking. Until you understand love and compassion that crosses lines to the heart you will keep right on being legalistic.
: mclees8 Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 09:28:08
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 05:31:43
: mclees8 Thu Feb 25, 2016 - 16:13:32
You truly don't understand the love and compassion of Christ in this matter by the one who knows the heart of all men. You legalists put Christ into your box of laws and rules and keep the keys of it.
Have you anything constructive to add to this discussion or are you just here to throw insults around?
Im sorry if you are offended but I said the truth. You are a legalist but you are not alone, your comrades here are legalists also. Your church is legalist. Your interpretations come from legalist theology and thinking. Until you understand love and compassion that crosses lines to the heart you will keep right on being legalistic.
You wouldn't offend me if it was the truth.
I'm always amazed when protestants acuse Catholics of legalism. I always consider Protestants as the legalists whereas Catholicism is all about grace and mercy.
Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30
: mclees8 Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 09:28:08
Im sorry if you are offended but I said the truth. You are a legalist but you are not alone, your comrades here are legalists also. Your church is legalist. Your interpretations come from legalist theology and thinking. Until you understand love and compassion that crosses lines to the heart you will keep right on being legalistic.
You wouldn't offend me if it was the truth.
I'm always amazed when protestants acuse Catholics of legalism. I always consider Protestants as the legalists whereas Catholicism is all about grace and mercy.
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday.
that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place,
Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men.
Christ did away with that.
Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of '
holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up
sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that...
what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 07:13:35
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30
: mclees8 Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 09:28:08
Im sorry if you are offended but I said the truth. You are a legalist but you are not alone, your comrades here are legalists also. Your church is legalist. Your interpretations come from legalist theology and thinking. Until you understand love and compassion that crosses lines to the heart you will keep right on being legalistic.
You wouldn't offend me if it was the truth.
I'm always amazed when protestants acuse Catholics of legalism. I always consider Protestants as the legalists whereas Catholicism is all about grace and mercy.
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday. that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place, Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men. Christ did away with that. Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of 'holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that... what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
I'm sure your shopping list of Catholic "faults" is very long and not to the point.
: winsome Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 08:48:53
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 07:13:35
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30
: mclees8 Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 09:28:08
Im sorry if you are offended but I said the truth. You are a legalist but you are not alone, your comrades here are legalists also. Your church is legalist. Your interpretations come from legalist theology and thinking. Until you understand love and compassion that crosses lines to the heart you will keep right on being legalistic.
You wouldn't offend me if it was the truth.
I'm always amazed when protestants acuse Catholics of legalism. I always consider Protestants as the legalists whereas Catholicism is all about grace and mercy.
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday. that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place, Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men. Christ did away with that. Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of 'holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that... what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
I'm sure your shopping list of Catholic "faults" is very long and not to the point.
it's the 'fault' of your church that it's long. as for
'to the point'-
it's in response to you - if you'll note the red bold in your previous post.
While on this board for the next two weeks I am going to highlight every legalistic response when I come across them. This could be interesting ::pondering::
: mclees8 Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 17:32:33
While on this board for the next two weeks I am going to highlight every legalistic response when I come across them. This could be interesting ::pondering::
good idea mclees8 - thx!
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 13:59:20
: winsome Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 08:48:53
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 07:13:35
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30
: mclees8 Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 09:28:08
Im sorry if you are offended but I said the truth. You are a legalist but you are not alone, your comrades here are legalists also. Your church is legalist. Your interpretations come from legalist theology and thinking. Until you understand love and compassion that crosses lines to the heart you will keep right on being legalistic.
You wouldn't offend me if it was the truth.
I'm always amazed when protestants acuse Catholics of legalism. I always consider Protestants as the legalists whereas Catholicism is all about grace and mercy.
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday. that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place, Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men. Christ did away with that. Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of 'holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that... what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
I'm sure your shopping list of Catholic "faults" is very long and not to the point.
it's the 'fault' of your church that it's long. as for 'to the point'- it's in response to you - if you'll note the red bold in your previous post.
The point is that I was discussing Catholic Soteriology and in particular baptism.
In that context Catholicism is all about God's love - his mercy and grace.
Protestantism is all about legalism - penal substitution and imputations. All legalism.
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 07:13:35
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30
: mclees8 Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 09:28:08
Im sorry if you are offended but I said the truth. You are a legalist but you are not alone, your comrades here are legalists also. Your church is legalist. Your interpretations come from legalist theology and thinking. Until you understand love and compassion that crosses lines to the heart you will keep right on being legalistic.
You wouldn't offend me if it was the truth.
I'm always amazed when protestants acuse Catholics of legalism. I always consider Protestants as the legalists whereas Catholicism is all about grace and mercy.
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday. that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place, Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men. Christ did away with that. Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of 'holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that... what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
No sacraments were made up, they actually exist and the Church just pointed them out.
The priesthood, as apart from every believer being included, was established by Christ and taken up by the Apostles. The "laying on of hands" and sending certain men out to preach was a deliberate action. Once again you fail to see what the Holy Scriptures actually say.
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
And What does God really say? He says to follow and look to the Church which He established on this earth. I'm sorry, but Jesus never said that only a book should be written and people were then to figure out the whole thing themselves. The Church is a living entity, shepherding the faithful, a place in which resides the Holy Spirit.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 07:13:35
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30
: mclees8 Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 09:28:08
Im sorry if you are offended but I said the truth. You are a legalist but you are not alone, your comrades here are legalists also. Your church is legalist. Your interpretations come from legalist theology and thinking. Until you understand love and compassion that crosses lines to the heart you will keep right on being legalistic.
You wouldn't offend me if it was the truth.
I'm always amazed when protestants acuse Catholics of legalism. I always consider Protestants as the legalists whereas Catholicism is all about grace and mercy.
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday. that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place, Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men. Christ did away with that. Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of 'holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that... what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
No sacraments were made up, they actually exist and the Church just pointed them out.
The priesthood, as apart from every believer being included, was established by Christ and taken up by the Apostles. The "laying on of hands" and sending certain men out to preach was a deliberate action. Once again you fail to see what the Holy Scriptures actually say.
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
And What does God really say? He says to follow and look to the Church which He established on this earth. I'm sorry, but Jesus never said that only a book should be written and people were then to figure out the whole thing themselves. The Church is a living entity, shepherding the faithful, a place in which resides the Holy Spirit.
Legalism number 1 We do not serve God by keeping the law. God told Ezekiel -- A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. Eze 36:26-28
No we serve God because we have a spirit of love that should want to do those things to p[lease, not that because if do not do it we commit sin. What if one was not able to make it to Mass one day and missed the Eucharist. Shall he then do 50Hail Mary's and craw up the steps of the church
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 2 Eze 36:26-28
We do not serve or please God by the law. The law is condemnation and brings death
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 09:57:07
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 2 Eze 36:26-28
We do not serve or please God by the law. The law is condemnation and brings death
What do you mean by "the law"?
The NT gives us plenty of laws that we need to obey. For example:
"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him." 1Jn 3:15
"Let marriage be honoured among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers." Heb 13:4
"Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" Eph 5:5
Keeping God's moral laws is not legalism
Legalism is claiming that God deals with us by legal fictions like penal substitution and imputation, instead of by mercy, forgiveness and grace.
: winsome Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 10:19:05
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 09:57:07
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 2 Eze 36:26-28
We do not serve or please God by the law. The law is condemnation and brings death
What do you mean by "the law"?
The NT gives us plenty of laws that we need to obey. For example:
"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him." 1Jn 3:15
"Let marriage be honoured among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers." Heb 13:4
"Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" Eph 5:5
Keeping God's moral laws is not legalism
Legalism is claiming that God deals with us by legal fictions like penal substitution and imputation, instead of by mercy, forgiveness and grace.
And you believe that you must obey all these things because its law don't you? Will keeping these laws get you to heaven?
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 10:38:18
: winsome Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 10:19:05
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 09:57:07
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 2 Eze 36:26-28
We do not serve or please God by the law. The law is condemnation and brings death
What do you mean by "the law"?
The NT gives us plenty of laws that we need to obey. For example:
"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him." 1Jn 3:15
"Let marriage be honoured among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers." Heb 13:4
"Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" Eph 5:5
Keeping God's moral laws is not legalism
Legalism is claiming that God deals with us by legal fictions like penal substitution and imputation, instead of by mercy, forgiveness and grace.
And you believe that you must obey all these things because its law don't you? Will keeping these laws get you to heaven?
Which bit of (for example) "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that
no murderer has eternal life remaining in him." 1Jn 3:15 are you not understanding?
: winsome Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 12:01:19
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 10:38:18
: winsome Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 10:19:05
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 09:57:07
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 2 Eze 36:26-28
We do not serve or please God by the law. The law is condemnation and brings death
What do you mean by "the law"?
The NT gives us plenty of laws that we need to obey. For example:
"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him." 1Jn 3:15
"Let marriage be honoured among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers." Heb 13:4
"Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" Eph 5:5
Keeping God's moral laws is not legalism
Legalism is claiming that God deals with us by legal fictions like penal substitution and imputation, instead of by mercy, forgiveness and grace.
And you believe that you must obey all these things because its law don't you? Will keeping these laws get you to heaven?
Which bit of (for example) "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him." 1Jn 3:15 are you not understanding?
So do I not hate my brother because it is the law that I do not hate my brother? Did not Jesus say they will know you are a believer because of our love for one another. ?
Your legalism comes from a carnal concept. We walk by a knew Law now which is the law of the spirit that compels us to love one another. There is a difference but you seem to be blind to it.
Winsome, there's an error there. When making not having your brother into a law, you're saying we must love our brother by our strength. There should be a willingness, but love that's forced from us, especially by legal obligation, is not a love from God.
Here is your mind set. The church gives us the law. This law is like Do this and do that, and you don't do this and you don't do that. We are you authority so must obey or be punished. You are a legalist. We love Gods laws and keep them because he put His laws in our hearts. The laws and rules you read are true yet a matter of record. Not, don't do this and don't do that. The Law was given by God to the children of Israel but they were never able to Obey them. Jesus took the curse of the law upon Himself so we could be free from the bondage of the law of condemnation and damnation. We worship in the spirit of love not hate. We love Gods law now because the condemnation of the law has been lifted. I don't know how to say it.
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 12:46:01
Here is your mind set. The church gives us the law. This law is like Do this and do that, and you don't do this and you don't do that. We are you authority so must obey or be punished. You are a legalist. We love Gods laws and keep them because he put His laws in our hearts. The laws and rules you read are true yet a matter of record. Not, don't do this and don't do that. The Law was given by God to the children of Israel but they were never able to Obey them. Jesus took the curse of the law upon Himself so we could be free from the bondage of the law of condemnation and damnation. We worship in the spirit of love not hate. We love Gods law now because the condemnation of the law has been lifted. I don't know how to say it.
Do you never sin then mclees?
Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness;
sin is lawlessness. (1 Jn 3:4)
Jesus said: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." (Jn 15:10)
He also said: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." (Jn 15:6)
You seem to think keeping Christ's commandments is something trivial,
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 12:46:01
Jesus took the curse of the law upon Himself so we could be free from the bondage of the law of condemnation and damnation.
Do you really think that if you murder, commit adutery, worship idols etc you will not be condemned?
: winsome Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 12:58:10
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 12:46:01
Here is your mind set. The church gives us the law. This law is like Do this and do that, and you don't do this and you don't do that. We are you authority so must obey or be punished. You are a legalist. We love Gods laws and keep them because he put His laws in our hearts. The laws and rules you read are true yet a matter of record. Not, don't do this and don't do that. The Law was given by God to the children of Israel but they were never able to Obey them. Jesus took the curse of the law upon Himself so we could be free from the bondage of the law of condemnation and damnation. We worship in the spirit of love not hate. We love Gods law now because the condemnation of the law has been lifted. I don't know how to say it.
Do you never sin then mclees?
Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. (1 Jn 3:4)
Jesus said: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." (Jn 15:10)
He also said: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." (Jn 15:6)
You seem to think keeping Christ's commandments is something trivial,
what does that have to do with it? I didn't see anything he posted that made it seem trivial.
of course we sin. we're human. as children of God (since being born again) tho, He loves us inspite of ourselves. just like I love my kids even when they really tick me off... what could your kids do to cause you not to continue to love them? to disown them?
: skeeter Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 13:16:07
: winsome Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 12:58:10
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 12:46:01
Here is your mind set. The church gives us the law. This law is like Do this and do that, and you don't do this and you don't do that. We are you authority so must obey or be punished. You are a legalist. We love Gods laws and keep them because he put His laws in our hearts. The laws and rules you read are true yet a matter of record. Not, don't do this and don't do that. The Law was given by God to the children of Israel but they were never able to Obey them. Jesus took the curse of the law upon Himself so we could be free from the bondage of the law of condemnation and damnation. We worship in the spirit of love not hate. We love Gods law now because the condemnation of the law has been lifted. I don't know how to say it.
Do you never sin then mclees?
Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. (1 Jn 3:4)
Jesus said: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." (Jn 15:10)
He also said: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." (Jn 15:6)
You seem to think keeping Christ's commandments is something trivial,
what does that have to do with it? I didn't see anything he posted that made it seem trivial.
of course we sin. we're human. as children of God (since being born again) tho, He loves us inspite of ourselves. just like I love my kids even when they really tick me off... what could your kids do to cause you not to continue to love them? to disown them?
Yes, of course he loves us.
But what does "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." mean to you?
Do you think you can commit murder, adultery, worship idols etc and (unless you repent of them) still go to heaven?
Do you never sin then mclees?
Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. (1 Jn 3:4)
Yes I sin but not as one who willfully and wantonly living a debouched life. If any man who lives this way is not of Christ and he is as lawless man. How about you? do you ever sin? I will go so far as to say you most likely need to confess almost daily of sin whether by though or deed. I lay myself bare before the Lord every morning because I know the flesh is at war with the spirit. You probably know the Lords prayer. How often do you pray or recite it. Does it not say forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
If you prayed every day this prayer are you not asking daily for forgiveness. Neither you or I can live a perfect life and it is not relevant to my post.
: winsome Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 13:29:23
: skeeter Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 13:16:07
: winsome Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 12:58:10
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 12:46:01
Here is your mind set. The church gives us the law. This law is like Do this and do that, and you don't do this and you don't do that. We are you authority so must obey or be punished. You are a legalist. We love Gods laws and keep them because he put His laws in our hearts. The laws and rules you read are true yet a matter of record. Not, don't do this and don't do that. The Law was given by God to the children of Israel but they were never able to Obey them. Jesus took the curse of the law upon Himself so we could be free from the bondage of the law of condemnation and damnation. We worship in the spirit of love not hate. We love Gods law now because the condemnation of the law has been lifted. I don't know how to say it.
Do you never sin then mclees?
Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. (1 Jn 3:4)
Jesus said: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." (Jn 15:10)
He also said: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." (Jn 15:6)
You seem to think keeping Christ's commandments is something trivial,
what does that have to do with it? I didn't see anything he posted that made it seem trivial.
of course we sin. we're human. as children of God (since being born again) tho, He loves us inspite of ourselves. just like I love my kids even when they really tick me off... what could your kids do to cause you not to continue to love them? to disown them?
Yes, of course he loves us.
But what does "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." mean to you?
Do you think you can commit murder, adultery, worship idols etc and (unless you repent of them) still go to heaven?
Yes you are correct once again winsome, it's a fact and if we want to just claim 'to others' that we are OSAS and then just love to run away in ignorance of the fact that is put forward here by winsome.
Maybe they can or will still go to Heaven, but they don't truly love Jesus Christ the way one can do and just want to hold on to his clothing to get in like so, because they just disregard so many things as nothing that the Bible does point out.
They must not be in Christ, are they just sitting on his tail coat along for the ride say. ::shrug::
There are levels in Heaven I would believe it's true, so why be just content on just getting in the door and just sit back.
They get all huff and puff about it's all about how to get in the door and that's it, there work is done and never mind anything other, because they get all offended.
Sadly the fact is all Political Correct socialist type of people are just so hung up on not wanting to be offended, that they can't see past that point and want to attack anyone who points out their lacking in some way.
It's the Holy Spirit that guides our lives day by day, it's a companion ship abiding in Christ Jesus only Charity is abiding in Jesus, that's the gift working in you every day, it's not a one off done deal like Satan would claim.
Once you are born again it's time to shine, not just sit back and bag anything you don't think is worth jack in ignorance.
I have had a gut full of people that think sin is fine as long as you are a supporter of OSAS you are fine to do what ever you please.
The Bible does not say OSAS anywhere it could of be very easy to wright it down, but it just does not say it at all, sadly the PC mob don't like to be offended.
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 07:13:35
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday. that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place, Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men. Christ did away with that. Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of 'holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that... what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20No sacraments were made up, they actually exist and the Church just pointed them out.
The priesthood, as apart from every believer being included, was established by Christ and taken up by the Apostles. The "laying on of hands" and sending certain men out to preach was a deliberate action. Once again you fail to see what the Holy Scriptures actually say.
then you should have no problem posting exactly where in scripture (the Bible) Christ established the priesthood. And where / how He formally made the Apostles priests. Priests are from the tribe of Levi - so be sure to tie that in with the Apostles.
no, it's not those who are born again who don't see what Scripture says, that's the catholics!
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
again, you should be able to post were it
specifically states
in the NT that we
must attend a worship svc on a particular day. and that it is a mortal/
deadly sin not to do that.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20
And What does God really say? He says to follow and look to the Church which He established on this earth. I'm sorry, but Jesus never said that only a book should be written and people were then to figure out the whole thing themselves. The Church is a living entity, shepherding the faithful, a place in which resides the Holy Spirit.
please post where the Bible specifically states the His believers are to follow and 'look' to the RCC that He established on earth.
post where in the Bible it says that the Holy Spirit resides in a place?
do you think He requested that a movie script, tv show, play, ? should be written also?
post specifically where the Bible states that the RCC is 'His
Church'.
Since
the Holy Spirit only resides in those who are born again,
post exactly where it says that the RCC has been born again.
God specifically required His words to be written - He spoke in it and so did Jesus. It is God's instructions to us. Jesus quoted the OT and had the NT written down also. As a Jew, Jesus read and quoted the scriptures regularly and knew the importance of them. Do you think He did that so that it would be ignored, not read, left on a shelf? because it didn't say anything important in it?
btw, the Bible was written so that most of the people of that time could understand it. He didn't leave His people alone tho, He gave them the Apostles - and the Holy Spirit. it's amazing how much easier it is to read and understand the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. the difference is that of a bright sunny day vs a moonless night.
: skeeter Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 22:36:01
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 07:13:35
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday. that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place, Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men. Christ did away with that. Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of 'holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that... what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20No sacraments were made up, they actually exist and the Church just pointed them out.
The priesthood, as apart from every believer being included, was established by Christ and taken up by the Apostles. The "laying on of hands" and sending certain men out to preach was a deliberate action. Once again you fail to see what the Holy Scriptures actually say.
then you should have no problem posting exactly where in scripture (the Bible) Christ established the priesthood. And where / how He formally made the Apostles priests. Priests are from the tribe of Levi - so be sure to tie that in with the Apostles.
no, it's not those who are born again who don't see what Scripture says, that's the catholics!
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
again, you should be able to post were it specifically states in the NT that we must attend a worship svc on a particular day. and that it is a mortal/deadly sin not to do that.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20
And What does God really say? He says to follow and look to the Church which He established on this earth. I'm sorry, but Jesus never said that only a book should be written and people were then to figure out the whole thing themselves. The Church is a living entity, shepherding the faithful, a place in which resides the Holy Spirit.
please post where the Bible specifically states the His believers are to follow and 'look' to the RCC that He established on earth.
post where in the Bible it says that the Holy Spirit resides in a place?
do you think He requested that a movie script, tv show, play, ? should be written also?
post specifically where the Bible states that the RCC is 'His Church'.
Since the Holy Spirit only resides in those who are born again, post exactly where it says that the RCC has been born again.
God specifically required His words to be written - He spoke in it and so did Jesus. It is God's instructions to us. Jesus quoted the OT and had the NT written down also. As a Jew, Jesus read and quoted the scriptures regularly and knew the importance of them. Do you think He did that so that it would be ignored, not read, left on a shelf? because it didn't say anything important in it?
btw, the Bible was written so that most of the people of that time could understand it. He didn't leave His people alone tho, He gave them the Apostles - and the Holy Spirit. it's amazing how much easier it is to read and understand the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. the difference is that of a bright sunny day vs a moonless night.
Here we go again! I could post Scripture texts answering everything you mentioned, but you would just reject it by saying that our interpretation is wrong. So since we already know your comeback I will not waste my time - nor yours. You believe nothing of what the Catholic Church teaches and that is everything in a nutshell.
But really, please tell me where Jesus said: "Write this all down". Chapter and verse please! You are confusing the OT with the NT. The Word (Jesus) was alive, a human being, God Incarnate - not word (s) on paper.
And you don't believe in an ordained clergy either? What my friend was all that "laying on" of hands about then?
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 22:42:13
: skeeter Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 22:36:01
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 07:13:35
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday. that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place, Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men. Christ did away with that. Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of 'holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that... what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20No sacraments were made up, they actually exist and the Church just pointed them out.
The priesthood, as apart from every believer being included, was established by Christ and taken up by the Apostles. The "laying on of hands" and sending certain men out to preach was a deliberate action. Once again you fail to see what the Holy Scriptures actually say.
then you should have no problem posting exactly where in scripture (the Bible) Christ established the priesthood. And where / how He formally made the Apostles priests. Priests are from the tribe of Levi - so be sure to tie that in with the Apostles.
no, it's not those who are born again who don't see what Scripture says, that's the catholics!
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
again, you should be able to post were it specifically states in the NT that we must attend a worship svc on a particular day. and that it is a mortal/deadly sin not to do that.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20
And What does God really say? He says to follow and look to the Church which He established on this earth. I'm sorry, but Jesus never said that only a book should be written and people were then to figure out the whole thing themselves. The Church is a living entity, shepherding the faithful, a place in which resides the Holy Spirit.
please post where the Bible specifically states the His believers are to follow and 'look' to the RCC that He established on earth.
post where in the Bible it says that the Holy Spirit resides in a place?
do you think He requested that a movie script, tv show, play, ? should be written also?
post specifically where the Bible states that the RCC is 'His Church'.
Since the Holy Spirit only resides in those who are born again, post exactly where it says that the RCC has been born again.
God specifically required His words to be written - He spoke in it and so did Jesus. It is God's instructions to us. Jesus quoted the OT and had the NT written down also. As a Jew, Jesus read and quoted the scriptures regularly and knew the importance of them. Do you think He did that so that it would be ignored, not read, left on a shelf? because it didn't say anything important in it?
btw, the Bible was written so that most of the people of that time could understand it. He didn't leave His people alone tho, He gave them the Apostles - and the Holy Spirit. it's amazing how much easier it is to read and understand the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. the difference is that of a bright sunny day vs a moonless night.
Here we go again! I could post Scripture texts answering everything you mentioned, but you would just reject it by saying that our interpretation is wrong. So since we already know your comeback I will not waste my time - nor yours. You believe nothing of what the Catholic Church teaches and that is everything in a nutshell.
yes, I'm sure I would. I've had many decades of reading and hearing what catholics think scripture says and so far it's been wrong about 99% of the time.
and you are right. there is very little that the RCC teaches that I believe. I could probably type all they teach that I could agree with on 1 sheet of paper - triple spaced.
it's very sad that catholics don't learn how to read scripture and spend time in it. it does take some time to learn and understand but there is nothing better than doing that. it is awesome. the bible is an incredibly intertwined mosaic of God's love for us.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 22:42:13
But really, please tell me where Jesus said: "Write this all down". Chapter and verse please! You are confusing the OT with the NT. The Word (Jesus) was alive, a human being, God Incarnate - not word (s) on paper.
And you don't believe in an ordained clergy either? What my friend was all that "laying on" of hands about then?
here's a few verses - from the OT and NT. there are tons more but I won't waste my time listing them all. look 'em up.
Exodus 17:14 Then the Lord said to Moses, "
Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."
Exodus 34:27 Then the Lord said to Moses, "
Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
Deuteronomy 17:18 "Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that
he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites.
Deuteronomy 27:3 You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over, that you may enter the land which the Lord your God is giving you, 'a land flowing with milk and honey,' just as the Lord God of your fathers promised you.
Deuteronomy 31:19 "Now therefore,
write down this song for yourselves, and teach it to the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel.
Revelation 1:11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see,
write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
Revelation 1:19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.
Revelation 2:1 [ The Loveless Church ] "To the angel of the
church of Ephesus write, 'These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands:
Revelation 2:8 [ The Persecuted Church ] "And to the angel of
the church in Smyrna write, 'These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life:
Revelation 2:12
[ The Compromising Church ] "And to the angel of the church
in Pergamos write, 'These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword:
Revelation 2:18 [ The Corrupt Church ] "And to the angel of the church
in Thyatira write, 'These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass:
Revelation 3:1 [ The Dead Church ] "And to the angel of the church
in Sardis write, 'These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.
Revelation 3:7 [ The Faithful Church ] "And to the angel of the church
in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens":
ordained ministers? yes, I believe in them - just like I think school teachers should have a license to teach. I don't believe it's a sacrament. and no priests - that ended with the law.
: skeeter Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 23:32:56
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 22:42:13
: skeeter Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 22:36:01
: skeeter Sun Feb 28, 2016 - 07:13:35
I can understand how you are amazed - catholics see God and His word from a negative or reverse view.
now that is something to really think about! considering it's the catholics who have made up an incredible long list of new rules and regulations that they say is 'from God' (I assume they think it is from God since it comes from the RCC).
Christ came to fulfill (and make null) the old law. yet the RCC thinks it has the right to bring new laws into existence? yes, they really do think they are God, they over rule what Jesus did...
: winsome Fri Feb 26, 2016 - 12:06:30Could you give me some examples of what you consider legalism about Catholic teaching.
start with their many (mega) rules and regulations. that not going to Mass on sunday/Saturday is a mortal sin. that the day is moveable between sunday and Saturday. that which day it is even matters...
that one can - and should change/overrule what God put into place, Christ as our sole mediator, by establishing a priesthood of men. Christ did away with that. Did all the RCC priests even come from the tribe of Levi?
instituting non existing places/area of 'holding' such as limbo and purgatory. neither are biblical.
making up sacraments not give to us by God.
the RCC replaces God with its self. You have to follow what the 'church'/RCC says. the 'church' / RCC says this and it says that... what does God say? they are very different things!
the list is very long
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20No sacraments were made up, they actually exist and the Church just pointed them out.
The priesthood, as apart from every believer being included, was established by Christ and taken up by the Apostles. The "laying on of hands" and sending certain men out to preach was a deliberate action. Once again you fail to see what the Holy Scriptures actually say.
then you should have no problem posting exactly where in scripture (the Bible) Christ established the priesthood. And where / how He formally made the Apostles priests. Priests are from the tribe of Levi - so be sure to tie that in with the Apostles.
no, it's not those who are born again who don't see what Scripture says, that's the catholics!
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20
And missing Mass on Sunday without a valid reason is rightly a sin. We are commanded to attend worship services, to acknowledge God Almighty on a particular day.
again, you should be able to post were it specifically states in the NT that we must attend a worship svc on a particular day. and that it is a mortal/deadly sin not to do that.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 08:53:20
And What does God really say? He says to follow and look to the Church which He established on this earth. I'm sorry, but Jesus never said that only a book should be written and people were then to figure out the whole thing themselves. The Church is a living entity, shepherding the faithful, a place in which resides the Holy Spirit.
please post where the Bible specifically states the His believers are to follow and 'look' to the RCC that He established on earth.
post where in the Bible it says that the Holy Spirit resides in a place?
do you think He requested that a movie script, tv show, play, ? should be written also?
post specifically where the Bible states that the RCC is 'His Church'.
Since the Holy Spirit only resides in those who are born again, post exactly where it says that the RCC has been born again.
God specifically required His words to be written - He spoke in it and so did Jesus. It is God's instructions to us. Jesus quoted the OT and had the NT written down also. As a Jew, Jesus read and quoted the scriptures regularly and knew the importance of them. Do you think He did that so that it would be ignored, not read, left on a shelf? because it didn't say anything important in it?
btw, the Bible was written so that most of the people of that time could understand it. He didn't leave His people alone tho, He gave them the Apostles - and the Holy Spirit. it's amazing how much easier it is to read and understand the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. the difference is that of a bright sunny day vs a moonless night.
Here we go again! I could post Scripture texts answering everything you mentioned, but you would just reject it by saying that our interpretation is wrong. So since we already know your comeback I will not waste my time - nor yours. You believe nothing of what the Catholic Church teaches and that is everything in a nutshell.
yes, I'm sure I would. I've had many decades of reading and hearing what catholics think scripture says and so far it's been wrong about 99% of the time.
and you are right. there is very little that the RCC teaches that I believe. I could probably type all they teach that I could agree with on 1 sheet of paper - triple spaced.
it's very sad that catholics don't learn how to read scripture and spend time in it. it does take some time to learn and understand but there is nothing better than doing that. it is awesome. the bible is an incredibly intertwined mosaic of God's love for us.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 22:42:13
But really, please tell me where Jesus said: "Write this all down". Chapter and verse please! You are confusing the OT with the NT. The Word (Jesus) was alive, a human being, God Incarnate - not word (s) on paper.
And you don't believe in an ordained clergy either? What my friend was all that "laying on" of hands about then?
here's a few verses - from the OT and NT. there are tons more but I won't waste my time listing them all. look 'em up.
Exodus 17:14
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."
Exodus 34:27
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
Deuteronomy 17:18
"Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites.
Deuteronomy 27:3
You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over, that you may enter the land which the Lord your God is giving you, 'a land flowing with milk and honey,' just as the Lord God of your fathers promised you.
Deuteronomy 31:19
"Now therefore, write down this song for yourselves, and teach it to the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel.
Revelation 1:11
saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
Revelation 1:19
Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.
Revelation 2:1
[ The Loveless Church ] "To the angel of the church of Ephesus write, 'These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands:
Revelation 2:8
[ The Persecuted Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, 'These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life:
Revelation 2:12
[ The Compromising Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write, 'These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword:
Revelation 2:18
[ The Corrupt Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, 'These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass:
Revelation 3:1
[ The Dead Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, 'These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.
Revelation 3:7
[ The Faithful Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens":
ordained ministers? yes, I believe in them - just like I think school teachers should have a license to teach. I don't believe it's a sacrament. and no priests - that ended with the law.
And as I suspected, you could not give any Scripture quotes where Jesus said during His ministry HERE ON EARTH to write things down. (It was a nice try on your part though). And I know, your rejection of the Universal Christian Church, post the Apostles is complete. Your doctrinal belief system starts somewhere in the late 1400's, right? So from that reality we can see where your problems understanding and accepting orthodox Christian teachings begin. As you said "I don't believe" - and that is all you have, nothing but YOUR opinion on what is or isn't. The standard had been set by the Church from the early days (post Apostles) and you only deviate from it. Yours is the contrary opinion (one that didn't come about for 1500 years) not ours.
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 18:12:09
You probably know the Lords prayer. How often do you pray or recite it. Does it not say forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
If you prayed every day this prayer are you not asking daily for forgiveness. Neither you or I can live a perfect life and it is not relevant to my post.
Probably! ::doh::
It just shows how little you know of Catholicism. It's one of the most common prayers in Catholic liturgy (if not
the most common).
: Ladonia Tue Mar 01, 2016 - 00:05:00
: skeeter Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 23:32:56
: Ladonia Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 22:42:13
But really, please tell me where Jesus said: "Write this all down". Chapter and verse please! You are confusing the OT with the NT. The Word (Jesus) was alive, a human being, God Incarnate - not word (s) on paper.
And you don't believe in an ordained clergy either? What my friend was all that "laying on" of hands about then?
here's a few verses - from the OT and NT. there are tons more but I won't waste my time listing them all. look 'em up.
Exodus 17:14
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."
Exodus 34:27
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
Deuteronomy 17:18
"Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites.
Deuteronomy 27:3
You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over, that you may enter the land which the Lord your God is giving you, 'a land flowing with milk and honey,' just as the Lord God of your fathers promised you.
Deuteronomy 31:19
"Now therefore, write down this song for yourselves, and teach it to the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel.
Revelation 1:11
saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
Revelation 1:19
Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.
Revelation 2:1
[ The Loveless Church ] "To the angel of the church of Ephesus write, 'These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands:
Revelation 2:8
[ The Persecuted Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, 'These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life:
Revelation 2:12
[ The Compromising Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write, 'These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword:
Revelation 2:18
[ The Corrupt Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, 'These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass:
Revelation 3:1
[ The Dead Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, 'These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.
Revelation 3:7
[ The Faithful Church ] "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens":
ordained ministers? yes, I believe in them - just like I think school teachers should have a license to teach. I don't believe it's a sacrament. and no priests - that ended with the law.
And as I suspected, you could not give any Scripture quotes where Jesus said during His ministry HERE ON EARTH to write things down. (It was a nice try on your part though).
so, you meant that as a 'gotcha' request - sorry to disappoint you.
you might want to compare your original request (above in blue bold) with what you are
now saying was your request.
catholics do seem to have big problems just reading plain words...
Y'all really believe the apostles wrote down what they wrote without being led by the Spirit? Of course the Lord told them! They were needed back then, and even more so they're needed now.
: winsome Tue Mar 01, 2016 - 13:01:50
: mclees8 Mon Feb 29, 2016 - 18:12:09
You probably know the Lords prayer. How often do you pray or recite it. Does it not say forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
If you prayed every day this prayer are you not asking daily for forgiveness. Neither you or I can live a perfect life and it is not relevant to my post.
Probably! ::doh::
It just shows how little you know of Catholicism. It's one of the most common prayers in Catholic liturgy (if not the most common).
Yes I know and that is why I used it.
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
hates ???
Was that a Freudian slip?
: winsome Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 13:36:04
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
hates ???
Was that a Freudian slip?
while a lot of hate comes from catholics, it was most likely
just a typo...
: winsome Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 13:36:04
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
hates ???
Was that a Freudian slip?
Pardon me the word is
hats
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
You shot yourself in the foot there, Ladonia. Ever read Galatians? Paul made it clear those who practiced such as a manner of receiving favor are in grave error. Timothy, for example, was only circumcise to not give the Jews a reason to incite anything. Beside, they constantly accused Him of breaking the sabbath.
: Ladonia Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:26:00
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
Jesus was a Jew, are you?
not sure who has anything against most of those anyway.
it's the rituals the RCC has and the way they do them.
you all consider Peter the head of your church...so where in the NT does it tell us about him putting on magnificent robes and hats to lead others in a ritual. did he do that to baptize people? did he carry a large ball of incense and swing at people? Did he carry a large pole with a crucifix attached to the top of it?
did anyone in the NT carry a statue of Mary down the road to the house where they were going to meet together? with a crown of flowers on her head ?
: LexKnight Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:44:28
You shot yourself in the foot there, Ladonia. Ever read Galatians? Paul made it clear those who practiced such as a manner of receiving favor are in grave error. Timothy, for example, was only circumcise to not give the Jews a reason to incite anything. Beside, they constantly accused Him of breaking the sabbath.
Where in Galatians?-
Chapter and verse please.
: skeeter Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 00:48:50
: Ladonia Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:26:00
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
Jesus was a Jew, are you?
not sure who has anything against most of those anyway.
it's the rituals the RCC has and the way they do them.
you all consider Peter the head of your church...so where in the NT does it tell us about him putting on magnificent robes and hats to lead others in a ritual. did he do that to baptize people? did he carry a large ball of incense and swing at people? Did he carry a large pole with a crucifix attached to the top of it?
did anyone in the NT carry a statue of Mary down the road to the house where they were going to meet together? with a crown of flowers on her head ?
Anyone in the NT do altar calls?
It's not a single chapter and verse, it's one of the major things Paul dealt with in the book itself.
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 04:16:56
It's not a single chapter and verse, it's one of the major things Paul dealt with in the book itself.
So I just have your word for it.
No evidence whatsoever.
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 05:48:28
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 04:16:56
It's not a single chapter and verse, it's one of the major things Paul dealt with in the book itself.
So I just have your word for it.
No evidence whatsoever.
?
You have a bible, don't you?
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 04:10:46
: skeeter Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 00:48:50
: Ladonia Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:26:00
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
Jesus was a Jew, are you?
not sure who has anything against most of those anyway.
it's the rituals the RCC has and the way they do them.
you all consider Peter the head of your church...so where in the NT does it tell us about him putting on magnificent robes and hats to lead others in a ritual. did he do that to baptize people? did he carry a large ball of incense and swing at people? Did he carry a large pole with a crucifix attached to the top of it?
did anyone in the NT carry a statue of Mary down the road to the house where they were going to meet together? with a crown of flowers on her head ?
Anyone in the NT do altar calls?
Or use grape juice and crackers in lieu of unleavened bread and wine.
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 08:20:07
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 05:48:28
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 04:16:56
It's not a single chapter and verse, it's one of the major things Paul dealt with in the book itself.
So I just have your word for it.
No evidence whatsoever.
?
You have a bible, don't you?
Certainly, but When people claim the Bible says something I expect them to provide more than just saying it's in chapter x or y.
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 04:10:46
: skeeter Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 00:48:50
: Ladonia Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:26:00
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
Jesus was a Jew, are you?
not sure who has anything against most of those anyway.
it's the rituals the RCC has and the way they do them.
you all consider Peter the head of your church...so where in the NT does it tell us about him putting on magnificent robes and hats to lead others in a ritual. did he do that to baptize people? did he carry a large ball of incense and swing at people? Did he carry a large pole with a crucifix attached to the top of it?
did anyone in the NT carry a statue of Mary down the road to the house where they were going to meet together? with a crown of flowers on her head ?
Anyone in the NT do altar calls?
Alter calls is only a modern-day practice invented after the reformation. The apostles did not have alter calls. Do you recall any in the book of acts?
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 09:18:46
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 08:20:07
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 05:48:28
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 04:16:56
It's not a single chapter and verse, it's one of the major things Paul dealt with in the book itself.
So I just have your word for it.
No evidence whatsoever.
?
You have a bible, don't you?
Certainly, but When people claim the Bible says something I expect them to provide more than just saying it's in chapter x or y.
It's the underlying theme of what Paul was writing to to the Galatians, as in the whole epistle. I rather not take a passage out, if you're willing to confirm then look. If not, then don't.
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 11:28:49
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 09:18:46
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 08:20:07
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 05:48:28
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 04:16:56
It's not a single chapter and verse, it's one of the major things Paul dealt with in the book itself.
So I just have your word for it.
No evidence whatsoever.
?
You have a bible, don't you?
Certainly, but When people claim the Bible says something I expect them to provide more than just saying it's in chapter x or y.
It's the underlying theme of what Paul was writing to to the Galatians, as in the whole epistle. I rather not take a passage out, if you're willing to confirm then look. If not, then don't.
It's up to you to prove your claim and vaguely saying "it's the underlying theme" proves nothing.
: skeeter Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 00:48:50
: Ladonia Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:26:00
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
Jesus was a Jew, are you?
not sure who has anything against most of those anyway.
it's the rituals the RCC has and the way they do them.
you all consider Peter the head of your church...so where in the NT does it tell us about him putting on magnificent robes and hats to lead others in a ritual. did he do that to baptize people? did he carry a large ball of incense and swing at people? Did he carry a large pole with a crucifix attached to the top of it?
did anyone in the NT carry a statue of Mary down the road to the house where they were going to meet together? with a crown of flowers on her head ?
You are trying to say that we have to act the same as St. Paul did and that my friend was a completely different time and a place. The Universal (Catholic) Christian Church a few centuries later (4th century) was different than it was in those very early days, as that same church of today is different from the one in the 4th century. What remains the same is the authority that the entity called the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church has.
It had the authority to decide which writings of the Apostles and evangelists would be contained in the canon of the Holy Scriptures back in the 300's and it has that same authority to decide the liturgical way of worship for the faithful and the particular dress of it's clergy today. I see no problem with such things at all. Like everything else that lasts in this world Christianity has evolved. What do you want us to do, ditch everything of the modern era and wear robes, sandals, ride donkey's and worship in private homes or rented rooms? Good grief!
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 12:46:13
: skeeter Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 00:48:50
: Ladonia Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:26:00
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
Jesus was a Jew, are you?
not sure who has anything against most of those anyway.
it's the rituals the RCC has and the way they do them.
you all consider Peter the head of your church...so where in the NT does it tell us about him putting on magnificent robes and hats to lead others in a ritual. did he do that to baptize people? did he carry a large ball of incense and swing at people? Did he carry a large pole with a crucifix attached to the top of it?
did anyone in the NT carry a statue of Mary down the road to the house where they were going to meet together? with a crown of flowers on her head ?
You are trying to say that we have to act the same as St. Paul did and that my friend was a completely different time and a place. The Universal (Catholic) Christian Church a few centuries later (4th century) was different than it was in those very early days, as that same church of today is different from the one in the 4th century. What remains the same is the authority that the entity called the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church has.
It had the authority to decide which writings of the Apostles and evangelists would be contained in the canon of the Holy Scriptures back in the 300's and it has that same authority to decide the liturgical way of worship for the faithful and the particular dress of it's clergy today. I see no problem with such things at all. Like everything else that lasts in this world Christianity has evolved. What do you want us to do, ditch everything of the modern era and wear robes, sandals, ride donkey's and worship in private homes or rented rooms? Good grief!
There's a little more to it than that. There is Character of humility. It has been argued many times the strange likness of Color and trinkets of gold in Rev 17 almost perfect match and she is called a hore. Did the lord want his church to evolve to proud arrogant and showy costumes and ambitions? Yes stange thinking indeed.
: LexKnight Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:44:28
You shot yourself in the foot there, Ladonia. Ever read Galatians? Paul made it clear those who practiced such as a manner of receiving favor are in grave error. Timothy, for example, was only circumcise to not give the Jews a reason to incite anything. Beside, they constantly accused Him of breaking the sabbath.
How so? I was responding to the word "ritual", with the OP seeming to say that rituals are something bad and I don't think they are. I was merely pointing out that Jesus followed many rituals himself. Let me ask you, when a Christian is buried according to a set procedure (no matter which one a particular Christian faith tradition uses) is that bad? If your weekly worship service follows the same pattern is that unacceptable also? Those things that we do over and over again are rituals and I don't think doing them runs afoul of anything that is written in the Scriptures.
: mclees8 Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 16:48:48
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 12:46:13
: skeeter Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 00:48:50
: Ladonia Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:26:00
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
Jesus was a Jew, are you?
not sure who has anything against most of those anyway.
it's the rituals the RCC has and the way they do them.
you all consider Peter the head of your church...so where in the NT does it tell us about him putting on magnificent robes and hats to lead others in a ritual. did he do that to baptize people? did he carry a large ball of incense and swing at people? Did he carry a large pole with a crucifix attached to the top of it?
did anyone in the NT carry a statue of Mary down the road to the house where they were going to meet together? with a crown of flowers on her head ?
You are trying to say that we have to act the same as St. Paul did and that my friend was a completely different time and a place. The Universal (Catholic) Christian Church a few centuries later (4th century) was different than it was in those very early days, as that same church of today is different from the one in the 4th century. What remains the same is the authority that the entity called the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church has.
It had the authority to decide which writings of the Apostles and evangelists would be contained in the canon of the Holy Scriptures back in the 300's and it has that same authority to decide the liturgical way of worship for the faithful and the particular dress of it's clergy today. I see no problem with such things at all. Like everything else that lasts in this world Christianity has evolved. What do you want us to do, ditch everything of the modern era and wear robes, sandals, ride donkey's and worship in private homes or rented rooms? Good grief!
There's a little more to it than that. There is Character of humility. It has been argued many times the strange likness of Color and trinkets of gold in Rev 17 almost perfect match and she is called a hore. Did the lord want his church to evolve to proud arrogant and showy costumes and ambitions? Yes stange thinking indeed.
And since you brought up Revelations, what about the "New Jerusalem" adorned with every jewel, pearls, gold and whatnot. How does that reckon with your supposed "character of humility"? Sounds like God wants the best and most beautiful things that are available if you ask me. So no, that is not as "strange thinking" as you would have us believe.
The implication (and correct me if I'm wrong) I got from you was Jesus was okay with those rituals, of course that being a support of rituals in the Catholic Church. Except they constantly accused him of breaking the Sabbath, He went to the synagogues because that's where the people were, no evidence in any of the Gospels of Him celebrating the feasts other than attending Jerusalem (again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this), and He made His feelings concerning circumcision very clear (through one of His apostles, but still from Him).
I do agree a lot of it was part of everyday life, as we in America have our own customs and practices we've grown up with. But there's a major difference between everyday customs in a culture and dogmatic practices in the Assemblies. If one is doing it simply because it's his culture and it doesn't oppose the Lord, it's a neutral thing and nothing is wrong with it. If one is doing it with the mindset of pleasing the Lord or walking in His favor... that's what Paul was addressing in his epistle to the brethren in Galatia, destroying that notion. To put it frankly, God is not a God of rituals.
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:23:53
And since you brought up Revelations, what about the "New Jerusalem" adorned with every jewel, pearls, gold and whatnot. How does that reckon with your supposed "character of humility"? Sounds like God wants the best and most beautiful things that are available if you ask me. So no, that is not as "strange thinking" as you would have us believe.
I don't mean to impose, but if I may answer:
Before destruction a man's heart is haughty, but humility comes before honor.
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:32:10
The implication (and correct me if I'm wrong) I got from you was Jesus was okay with those rituals, of course that being a support of rituals in the Catholic Church. Except they constantly accused him of breaking the Sabbath, He went to the synagogues because that's where the people were, no evidence in any of the Gospels of Him celebrating the feasts other than attending Jerusalem (again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this), and He made His feelings concerning circumcision very clear (through one of His apostles, but still from Him).
I do agree a lot of it was part of everyday life, as we in America have our own customs and practices we've grown up with. But there's a major difference between everyday customs in a culture and dogmatic practices in the Assemblies. If one is doing it simply because it's his culture and it doesn't oppose the Lord, it's a neutral thing and nothing is wrong with it. If one is doing it with the mindset of pleasing the Lord or walking in His favor... that's what Paul was addressing in his epistle to the brethren in Galatia, destroying that notion. To put it frankly, God is not a God of rituals.
The Scriptures tell us that everything that occurred in Jesus's life was not written about, so we are to somehow come to the conclusion that as a Jew he didn't do all the things a Jewish man would normally do? I would say that the many things he did that violated the Old Law only happened after he started his ministry. Until then, he was most likely quite the ordinary religious Jew.
.
Yes, I understand what St. Paul was talking about in Galatians, he was the consummate evangelist. A good part of his exhortation there was for the people to stop sinning and and get with the program. It was always about the putting away of the Old Law and being freed by Christ.
As for the rituals, I speak not only in support of those in the Catholic Church, but in other Christian faith traditions as well. No, I don't thing Jesus would have a big problem with them.
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 11:44:20
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 11:28:49
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 09:18:46
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 08:20:07
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 05:48:28
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 04:16:56
It's not a single chapter and verse, it's one of the major things Paul dealt with in the book itself.
So I just have your word for it.
No evidence whatsoever.
?
You have a bible, don't you?
Certainly, but When people claim the Bible says something I expect them to provide more than just saying it's in chapter x or y.
It's the underlying theme of what Paul was writing to to the Galatians, as in the whole epistle. I rather not take a passage out, if you're willing to confirm then look. If not, then don't.
It's up to you to prove your claim and vaguely saying "it's the underlying theme" proves nothing.
Here is the problem with proof in the RCC.
When a person questions certain theologies and practices of the RCC, undeniable proof is demanded...but when the RCC announces things like Papal infallibility, existence of Purgatory or bodily ascension of Mary...proof is not required at all and a word is all it takes.
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:11:35
: LexKnight Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:44:28
You shot yourself in the foot there, Ladonia. Ever read Galatians? Paul made it clear those who practiced such as a manner of receiving favor are in grave error. Timothy, for example, was only circumcise to not give the Jews a reason to incite anything. Beside, they constantly accused Him of breaking the sabbath.
How so? I was responding to the word "ritual", with the OP seeming to say that rituals are something bad and I don't think they are. I was merely pointing out that Jesus followed many rituals himself. Let me ask you, when a Christian is buried according to a set procedure (no matter which one a particular Christian faith tradition uses) is that bad? If your weekly worship service follows the same pattern is that unacceptable also? Those things that we do over and over again are rituals and I don't think doing them runs afoul of anything that is written in the Scriptures.
Rituals are not necessarily bad, you are right. But you can't quality the value of a ritual just because Jesus did them. Scripture is pretty clear that rituals do not save people, it is a matter of attitude.
Jesus could have done any ritual He liked, or rejected any ritual He wanted because He was sinless. For Him to go to a ritual did not add to His righteousness. And neither do rituals add any value to our righteousness.
Problematic in RCC theology is that there are rituals that by themselves are perceived to have salvic value.
For example baptism. Doing the ritual itself obtains grace and merits. That's why Catholics are told to go to mass every week, it earns them merits.
How important are rituals in the RCC? Very.
For example Holy Communion could not be exercised without the ritual. If tomorrow all the priests in the RCC would succumb to a disease...Holy Communion can no longer be done, and neither can baptism or penance because the rituals can not be executed.
To hook in on the burial remark. Imagine a Catholic dying without having received his Last Rites...that's a huge problem.
Yes we do burials according to rituals, but the fact is that if the ritual cannot be exercised the person still gets buried.
Unlike many habits in the RCC, if the ritual cannot be executed...a Catholic has a huge problem because he will miss out of grace and merits.
: skeeter Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 00:48:50
: Ladonia Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:26:00
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
Jesus was a Jew, are you?
not sure who has anything against most of those anyway.
it's the rituals the RCC has and the way they do them.
you all consider Peter the head of your church...so where in the NT does it tell us about him putting on magnificent robes and hats to lead others in a ritual. did he do that to baptize people? did he carry a large ball of incense and swing at people? Did he carry a large pole with a crucifix attached to the top of it?
did anyone in the NT carry a statue of Mary down the road to the house where they were going to meet together? with a crown of flowers on her head ?
Was Jesus a Jew ?
He was a Hebrew.
He was a Israelite.
A Jew ? no not really because the word Jew only came after captivity, I believe.
There is the tribes of Israel and then the tribes of ?
The word Jew only means the People of God, and Israel means the Servants of God.
: AVZ Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 20:33:47
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 11:44:20
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 11:28:49
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 09:18:46
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 08:20:07
: winsome Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 05:48:28
: LexKnight Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 04:16:56
It's not a single chapter and verse, it's one of the major things Paul dealt with in the book itself.
So I just have your word for it.
No evidence whatsoever.
?
You have a bible, don't you?
Certainly, but When people claim the Bible says something I expect them to provide more than just saying it's in chapter x or y.
It's the underlying theme of what Paul was writing to to the Galatians, as in the whole epistle. I rather not take a passage out, if you're willing to confirm then look. If not, then don't.
It's up to you to prove your claim and vaguely saying "it's the underlying theme" proves nothing.
Here is the problem with proof in the RCC.
When a person questions certain theologies and practices of the RCC, undeniable proof is demanded...but when the RCC announces things like Papal infallibility, existence of Purgatory or bodily ascension of Mary...proof is not required at all and a word is all it takes.
Untrue. Those things have been hashed through many times and proof given. You just don't accept it.
: AVZ Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 20:49:55
Problematic in RCC theology is that there are rituals that by themselves are perceived to have salvic value.
Wrong
It's not that a ritual itself has salvific value but it is in the ritual, done in obedience to Jesus' command, that Jesus saves us.
We are saved by grace though faith (Eph 2:8).
: AVZ Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 20:49:55
For example baptism. Doing the ritual itself obtains grace......
It obtains grace because that is when Jesus applies the fruits of his redemption. It does not
earn grace.
"Through him [Jesus] we have obtained
access to this grace in which we stand (Rom 5:2)
"See to it that no one fails to
obtain the grace of God" (Heb 12:15)
: AVZ Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 20:49:55
That's why Catholics are told to go to mass every week, it earns them merits.
Rubbish! This has been all gone through before.
: AVZ Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 20:49:55
To hook in on the burial remark. Imagine a Catholic dying without having received his Last Rites...that's a huge problem.
What is the problem?
: AVZ Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 20:49:55
Yes we do burials according to rituals, but the fact is that if the ritual cannot be exercised the person still gets buried.
Ditto Catholics
: AVZ Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 20:49:55
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:11:35
: LexKnight Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:44:28
You shot yourself in the foot there, Ladonia. Ever read Galatians? Paul made it clear those who practiced such as a manner of receiving favor are in grave error. Timothy, for example, was only circumcise to not give the Jews a reason to incite anything. Beside, they constantly accused Him of breaking the sabbath.
How so? I was responding to the word "ritual", with the OP seeming to say that rituals are something bad and I don't think they are. I was merely pointing out that Jesus followed many rituals himself. Let me ask you, when a Christian is buried according to a set procedure (no matter which one a particular Christian faith tradition uses) is that bad? If your weekly worship service follows the same pattern is that unacceptable also? Those things that we do over and over again are rituals and I don't think doing them runs afoul of anything that is written in the Scriptures.
Rituals are not necessarily bad, you are right. But you can't quality the value of a ritual just because Jesus did them. Scripture is pretty clear that rituals do not save people, it is a matter of attitude.
Jesus could have done any ritual He liked, or rejected any ritual He wanted because He was sinless. For Him to go to a ritual did not add to His righteousness. And neither do rituals add any value to our righteousness.
Problematic in RCC theology is that there are rituals that by themselves are perceived to have salvic value.
For example baptism. Doing the ritual itself obtains grace and merits. That's why Catholics are told to go to mass every week, it earns them merits.
How important are rituals in the RCC? Very.
For example Holy Communion could not be exercised without the ritual. If tomorrow all the priests in the RCC would succumb to a disease...Holy Communion can no longer be done, and neither can baptism or penance because the rituals can not be executed.
To hook in on the burial remark. Imagine a Catholic dying without having received his Last Rites...that's a huge problem.
Yes we do burials according to rituals, but the fact is that if the ritual cannot be exercised the person still gets buried.
Unlike many habits in the RCC, if the ritual cannot be executed...a Catholic has a huge problem because he will miss out of grace and merits.
Catholics go to Mass every week because it is a command from God that we are to gather together and worship Him one day of each week. Is this a positive for the soul, or in other words is a grace received? You betcha!
Baptism is another command from God that one should partake of after coming to the realization that Christ is the Savior. Once again, is this another positive for the soul or grace received? You betcha!
As for not having priests and thus not having the Holy Eucharist, this is the most preposterous example I have ever read in all my time on this site. God would no more not have had those who preach Christian orthodoxy at any time than He would not have had all the prophets of old born, His Son born, or the Holy Scripures brought into being themselves. A ridiculous, unbelieveable argument for sure.
And just where do we get these "Last Rites"? Why from the Scriptures of course! In James 5:14-15 it says: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven".
Are these last rites a requirement of salvation? No, but is is another action that is a positive and thus bestows a grace on the soul.
: Ladonia Fri Mar 04, 2016 - 10:06:05
: AVZ Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 20:49:55
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:11:35
: LexKnight Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:44:28
You shot yourself in the foot there, Ladonia. Ever read Galatians? Paul made it clear those who practiced such as a manner of receiving favor are in grave error. Timothy, for example, was only circumcise to not give the Jews a reason to incite anything. Beside, they constantly accused Him of breaking the sabbath.
How so? I was responding to the word "ritual", with the OP seeming to say that rituals are something bad and I don't think they are. I was merely pointing out that Jesus followed many rituals himself. Let me ask you, when a Christian is buried according to a set procedure (no matter which one a particular Christian faith tradition uses) is that bad? If your weekly worship service follows the same pattern is that unacceptable also? Those things that we do over and over again are rituals and I don't think doing them runs afoul of anything that is written in the Scriptures.
Rituals are not necessarily bad, you are right. But you can't quality the value of a ritual just because Jesus did them. Scripture is pretty clear that rituals do not save people, it is a matter of attitude.
Jesus could have done any ritual He liked, or rejected any ritual He wanted because He was sinless. For Him to go to a ritual did not add to His righteousness. And neither do rituals add any value to our righteousness.
Problematic in RCC theology is that there are rituals that by themselves are perceived to have salvic value.
For example baptism. Doing the ritual itself obtains grace and merits. That's why Catholics are told to go to mass every week, it earns them merits.
How important are rituals in the RCC? Very.
For example Holy Communion could not be exercised without the ritual. If tomorrow all the priests in the RCC would succumb to a disease...Holy Communion can no longer be done, and neither can baptism or penance because the rituals can not be executed.
To hook in on the burial remark. Imagine a Catholic dying without having received his Last Rites...that's a huge problem.
Yes we do burials according to rituals, but the fact is that if the ritual cannot be exercised the person still gets buried.
Unlike many habits in the RCC, if the ritual cannot be executed...a Catholic has a huge problem because he will miss out of grace and merits.
Catholics go to Mass every week because it is a command from God that we are to gather together and worship Him one day of each week. Is this a positive for the soul, or in other words is a grace received? You betcha!
Baptism is another command from God that one should partake of after coming to the realization that Christ is the Savior. Once again, is this another positive for the soul or grace received? You betcha!
As for not having priests and thus not having the Holy Eucharist, this is the most preposterous example I have ever read in all my time on this site. God would no more not have had those who preach Christian orthodoxy at any time than He would not have had all the prophets of old born, His Son born, or the Holy Scripures brought into being themselves. A ridiculous, unbelieveable argument for sure.
And just where do we get these "Last Rites"? Why from the Scriptures of course! In James 5:14-15 it says: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven".
Are these last rites a requirement of salvation? No, but is is another action that is a positive and thus bestows a grace on the soul.
Bestows grace on the soul? Did they do all this under the apostles? Was not grace bestowed when the deceased first believed and was given the free gift of salvation. We only show respect to our brother that has now gone to be with His Lord. he already had grace bestowed on him
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:23:53
: mclees8 Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 16:48:48
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 12:46:13
: skeeter Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 00:48:50
: Ladonia Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 20:26:00
: mclees8 Wed Mar 02, 2016 - 12:13:40
These are papal mass pictures.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/28/article-0-1B08EAB6000005DC-324_964x721.jpg)
This is how the last supper is invisioned
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg)
Please note the difference. one is done in grandeur and the other is very common. You say your ideals go back to the original church. But the original church was born in humility and popes and bishops are surrounded in grandeur and lavish robes and hates , and rituals
Yes, yes, we know about how you feel about what our clergy wear and this all has been thoroughly discussed in previous threads. As for rituals, hey if certain rituals were okay for Jesus to follow, why are they somehow wrong for us? Here are a few that Our lord participated in.
1. Circumcision
2. Presented as a newborn at the Temple.
3. Presented once again when He became of age.
4. He kept the Sabbath and attended Jewish worship services.
5. He observed all the Jewish Holy days and festivals.
6. He most likely ate only ritually butchered and Jewish approved foods. (At least until He began His ministry)
7. And after He died, His Body was prepared for burial in the appropriate Jewish manner.
So you see, the truth is for Jesus it was one ritual after another. They are not bad or evil, just a part of everyday religious life.
Jesus was a Jew, are you?
not sure who has anything against most of those anyway.
it's the rituals the RCC has and the way they do them.
you all consider Peter the head of your church...so where in the NT does it tell us about him putting on magnificent robes and hats to lead others in a ritual. did he do that to baptize people? did he carry a large ball of incense and swing at people? Did he carry a large pole with a crucifix attached to the top of it?
did anyone in the NT carry a statue of Mary down the road to the house where they were going to meet together? with a crown of flowers on her head ?
You are trying to say that we have to act the same as St. Paul did and that my friend was a completely different time and a place. The Universal (Catholic) Christian Church a few centuries later (4th century) was different than it was in those very early days, as that same church of today is different from the one in the 4th century. What remains the same is the authority that the entity called the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church has.
It had the authority to decide which writings of the Apostles and evangelists would be contained in the canon of the Holy Scriptures back in the 300's and it has that same authority to decide the liturgical way of worship for the faithful and the particular dress of it's clergy today. I see no problem with such things at all. Like everything else that lasts in this world Christianity has evolved. What do you want us to do, ditch everything of the modern era and wear robes, sandals, ride donkey's and worship in private homes or rented rooms? Good grief!
There's a little more to it than that. There is Character of humility. It has been argued many times the strange likness of Color and trinkets of gold in Rev 17 almost perfect match and she is called a hore. Did the lord want his church to evolve to proud arrogant and showy costumes and ambitions? Yes stange thinking indeed.
And since you brought up Revelations, what about the "New Jerusalem" adorned with every jewel, pearls, gold and whatnot. How does that reckon with your supposed "character of humility"? Sounds like God wants the best and most beautiful things that are available if you ask me. So no, that is not as "strange thinking" as you would have us believe.
Good point. Might I ask from where the New Jerusalem is coming down from. Will not God be with people there. Where is it written that while we await this heavenly city the leaders of the church were to be exalted above all others with gold and pearls and every kind of gem. to be seen for there position with pride of titles. New Testament reference please
What happened here. The silence is deafening. ::shrug::
: mclees8 Sat Mar 05, 2016 - 10:55:35
What happened here. The silence is deafening. ::shrug::
Perhaps no-one wants to go round the Robes and Rings thing YET AGAIN!
But if you want to wander down memory lane - http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/of-robes-and-rings-and-other-things/msg1054897105/#msg1054897105 (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/of-robes-and-rings-and-other-things/msg1054897105/#msg1054897105)
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:23:53
And since you brought up Revelations, what about the "New Jerusalem" adorned with every jewel, pearls, gold and whatnot. How does that reckon with your supposed "character of humility"? Sounds like God wants the best and most beautiful things that are available if you ask me. So no, that is not as "strange thinking" as you would have us believe.
where is this in Rev? plz post the citation for it... thx.
: skeeter Sat Mar 05, 2016 - 14:21:09
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:23:53
And since you brought up Revelations, what about the "New Jerusalem" adorned with every jewel, pearls, gold and whatnot. How does that reckon with your supposed "character of humility"? Sounds like God wants the best and most beautiful things that are available if you ask me. So no, that is not as "strange thinking" as you would have us believe.
where is this in Rev? plz post the citation for it... thx.
Start at Rev 21-2 and then read to Rev 21: 18 - 20.
: Ladonia Sat Mar 05, 2016 - 19:51:15
: skeeter Sat Mar 05, 2016 - 14:21:09
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:23:53
And since you brought up Revelations, what about the "New Jerusalem" adorned with every jewel, pearls, gold and whatnot. How does that reckon with your supposed "character of humility"? Sounds like God wants the best and most beautiful things that are available if you ask me. So no, that is not as "strange thinking" as you would have us believe.
where is this in Rev? plz post the citation for it... thx.
Start at Rev 21-2 and then read to Rev 21: 18 - 20.
Revelation 212 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. 12 Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west.
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. 16 The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal. 17 Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. 18 The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.very interesting - you think God needs to be humble? you think He isn't deserving of the best of everything? He who made it all?
: skeeter Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 01:24:15
: Ladonia Sat Mar 05, 2016 - 19:51:15
: skeeter Sat Mar 05, 2016 - 14:21:09
: Ladonia Thu Mar 03, 2016 - 19:23:53
And since you brought up Revelations, what about the "New Jerusalem" adorned with every jewel, pearls, gold and whatnot. How does that reckon with your supposed "character of humility"? Sounds like God wants the best and most beautiful things that are available if you ask me. So no, that is not as "strange thinking" as you would have us believe.
where is this in Rev? plz post the citation for it... thx.
Start at Rev 21-2 and then read to Rev 21: 18 - 20.
Revelation 21
2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. 12 Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west.
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. 16 The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal. 17 Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. 18 The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.
very interesting - you think God needs to be humble? you think He isn't deserving of the best of everything? He who made it all?
No, not at all. I agree, God deserves the best, so that is why some of our church's are very beautiful and our clergy likewise wear beautiful robes. It's not to make us mere humans feel more important, but done for the glory of God. These are some of the things that we orthodox believes do to emulate the Scriptures and is something that our friend Mclees simply cannot understand.
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
No, because He has not come yet, nor has His Saints been resurrected.
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:36:46
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
No, because He has not come yet, nor has His Saints been resurrected.
OK, so we are referring to different resurrections.
Rev 1 is after Jesus' resurrection. So how does your comment that he "had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him" relate to that? I would say none at all.
If, after His resurrection, Jesus is finely dressed in a white robe with a golden sash, eyes flames of fire etc, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies?
And even if the New Jerusalem is after the general resurrection, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies now?
In Rev 4 – before the general resurrection – John sees in heaven a throne, and "round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads." There were also harps and golden bowls full of incense.
: Ladonia Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 08:09:20
: skeeter Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 01:24:15
Revelation 21
2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. 12 Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west.
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. 16 The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal. 17 Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. 18 The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.
very interesting - you think God needs to be humble? you think He isn't deserving of the best of everything? He who made it all?
No, not at all. I agree, God deserves the best, so that is why some of our church's are very beautiful and our clergy likewise wear beautiful robes. It's not to make us mere humans feel more important, but done for the glory of God.
These are some of the things that we orthodox believes do to emulate the Scriptures and is something that our friend Mclees simply cannot understand.
if you (the rcc/catholics) were doing something for God,
you'd be believing in Him AND His word and proclaiming it to all. Without glorious robes and buildings.
that money could be used to fund orphanages, feed the poor and even to pay for those Syrian refugees to stay safely in their own homeland etc.
nice try, but no one's going to believe that the Vatican palaces are for the glory of God and not certain men who falsely claim to serve Him.
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
so? that means our wealth (and for those in the RCC - wealth given by others) should be used for our own extravagant gain rather than for His service?
a - after His resurrection. there will be another in the future.
c - falsehoods? how about using the best knowledge he had back then to describe what he saw?
and who could see Him being His face was like
'the sun shining in full strength'? that's blinding.
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
Beautiful stained glass windows in a church help tell the message of salvation. You have a problem with beautiful buildings which are set aside for worship and I don't see anything unbiblical either. I hear the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was one beautiful building as well.
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 11:44:11
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:36:46
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
No, because He has not come yet, nor has His Saints been resurrected.
OK, so we are referring to different resurrections.
Rev 1 is after Jesus' resurrection. So how does your comment that he "had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him" relate to that? I would say none at all.
If, after His resurrection, Jesus is finely dressed in a white robe with a golden sash, eyes flames of fire etc, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies?
And even if the New Jerusalem is after the general resurrection, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies now?
In Rev 4 – before the general resurrection – John sees in heaven a throne, and "round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads." There were also harps and golden bowls full of incense.
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
Jesus and the disciples were In Jerusalem walking past the Temple and one said master see the temple how beautiful it is. Jesus said then to them I tell you the truth there will not be one stone left on it. Do you think God is impressed with the Vatican? I tell you also a truth, the Vatican will be a ruins.
Another truth that not one earthy flashy carnal religious thing will please Him but only men.
You spoke of Revelation and the elders in white robes. May I remind you that this is a vision and not earthly but heavenly. The church was to be humble upon the earth and not a parade of flashy religious robes surrounded by grandeur The white robes are of spiritual portrayal. Listen to me, a beggar in dirty rags for clothes will be wearing the white robe before you ever will.
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:28:54
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 11:44:11
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:36:46
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
No, because He has not come yet, nor has His Saints been resurrected.
OK, so we are referring to different resurrections.
Rev 1 is after Jesus' resurrection. So how does your comment that he "had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him" relate to that? I would say none at all.
If, after His resurrection, Jesus is finely dressed in a white robe with a golden sash, eyes flames of fire etc, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies?
And even if the New Jerusalem is after the general resurrection, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies now?
In Rev 4 – before the general resurrection – John sees in heaven a throne, and "round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads." There were also harps and golden bowls full of incense.
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
Jesus and the disciples were In Jerusalem walking past the Temple and one said master see the temple how beautiful it is. Jesus said then to them I tell you the truth there will not be one stone left on it. Do you think God is impressed with the Vatican? I tell you also a truth, the Vatican will be a ruins.
Another truth that not one earthy flashy carnal religious thing will please Him but only men.
You spoke of Revelation and the elders in white robes. May I remind you that this is a vision and not earthly but heavenly. The church was to be humble upon the earth and not a parade of flashy religious robes surrounded by grandeur The white robes are of spiritual portrayal. Listen to me, a beggar in dirty rags for cloes will be wearing the white robe before you ever will.
Thank you for your personal and fallible opinion back up by not a single biblical reference.
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:48:03
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:28:54
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 11:44:11
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:36:46
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
No, because He has not come yet, nor has His Saints been resurrected.
OK, so we are referring to different resurrections.
Rev 1 is after Jesus' resurrection. So how does your comment that he "had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him" relate to that? I would say none at all.
If, after His resurrection, Jesus is finely dressed in a white robe with a golden sash, eyes flames of fire etc, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies?
And even if the New Jerusalem is after the general resurrection, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies now?
In Rev 4 – before the general resurrection – John sees in heaven a throne, and "round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads." There were also harps and golden bowls full of incense.
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
Jesus and the disciples were In Jerusalem walking past the Temple and one said master see the temple how beautiful it is. Jesus said then to them I tell you the truth there will not be one stone left on it. Do you think God is impressed with the Vatican? I tell you also a truth, the Vatican will be a ruins.
Another truth that not one earthy flashy carnal religious thing will please Him but only men.
You spoke of Revelation and the elders in white robes. May I remind you that this is a vision and not earthly but heavenly. The church was to be humble upon the earth and not a parade of flashy religious robes surrounded by grandeur The white robes are of spiritual portrayal. Listen to me, a beggar in dirty rags for cloes will be wearing the white robe before you ever will.
Thank you for your personal and fallible opinion back up by not a single biblical reference.
No biblical reference, Maybe you didn't read. If I have post scripture and and verse then you must not be as knowledgeable of the scripture as you would like everyone to think. But as you say I will give you them. Have to leave for now but be soon.
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:01:30
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:48:03
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:28:54
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 11:44:11
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:36:46
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
No, because He has not come yet, nor has His Saints been resurrected.
OK, so we are referring to different resurrections.
Rev 1 is after Jesus' resurrection. So how does your comment that he "had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him" relate to that? I would say none at all.
If, after His resurrection, Jesus is finely dressed in a white robe with a golden sash, eyes flames of fire etc, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies?
And even if the New Jerusalem is after the general resurrection, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies now?
In Rev 4 – before the general resurrection – John sees in heaven a throne, and "round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads." There were also harps and golden bowls full of incense.
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
Jesus and the disciples were In Jerusalem walking past the Temple and one said master see the temple how beautiful it is. Jesus said then to them I tell you the truth there will not be one stone left on it. Do you think God is impressed with the Vatican? I tell you also a truth, the Vatican will be a ruins.
Another truth that not one earthy flashy carnal religious thing will please Him but only men.
You spoke of Revelation and the elders in white robes. May I remind you that this is a vision and not earthly but heavenly. The church was to be humble upon the earth and not a parade of flashy religious robes surrounded by grandeur The white robes are of spiritual portrayal. Listen to me, a beggar in dirty rags for cloes will be wearing the white robe before you ever will.
Thank you for your personal and fallible opinion back up by not a single biblical reference.
No biblical reference, Maybe you didn't read. If I have post scripture and and verse then you must not be as knowledgeable of the scripture as you would like everyone to think. But as you say I will give you them. Have to leave for now but be soon.
Protestants demand scripture from Catholics. Why cannot you provide scripture?
The
allusions to scripture that you give tend to be garbled as though vaguely remembered. At least if you had to find them you might get them right.
mclees
Here is something for you to think about:
When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon they found Jerusalem and the Temple in ruins. They set about rebuilding Jerusalem and their homes but not the Temple.
God complained:
Haggai Chapter 1
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the LORD."
3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet,
4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?
8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
The Lord punished them for not rebuilding his house.
9 Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house.
10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.
11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all their labors."
They set to work.
14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of She-alti-el, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
Chapter 2
6 Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;
7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts.
9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.'"
When they had restored the glory of God's house he then blessed them
18 Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider:
19 Is the seed yet in the barn? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you."
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:28:54
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 11:44:11
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:36:46
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
No, because He has not come yet, nor has His Saints been resurrected.
OK, so we are referring to different resurrections.
Rev 1 is after Jesus' resurrection. So how does your comment that he "had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him" relate to that? I would say none at all.
If, after His resurrection, Jesus is finely dressed in a white robe with a golden sash, eyes flames of fire etc, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies?
And even if the New Jerusalem is after the general resurrection, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies now?
In Rev 4 – before the general resurrection – John sees in heaven a throne, and "round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads." There were also harps and golden bowls full of incense.
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; 46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built him an house. 48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things? Acts 7: 45-50
Jesus and the disciples were In Jerusalem walking past the Temple and one said master see the temple how beautiful it is. Jesus said then to them I tell you the truth there will not be one stone left on it. Do you think God is impressed with the Vatican? I tell you also a truth, the Vatican will be a ruins.
CHAPTER 24
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Matt 24: 1,2
Another truth that not one earthy flashy carnal religious thing will please Him but only men.
You spoke of Revelation and the elders in white robes. May I remind you that this is a vision and not earthly but heavenly. The church was to be humble upon the earth and not a parade of flashy religious robes surrounded by grandeur The white robes are of spiritual portrayal. Listen to me, a beggar in dirty rags for clothes will be wearing the white robe before you ever will.
But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,7
And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mt 23: 5-12
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; 46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built him an house. 48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things? Acts 7: 45-50
God instructed the Israelites to build a Tabernacle of the finest materials, gold, silver, bronze and fine materials (Ex 35:2-9) made by the best craftsmen (Ex 35:10-19) and then came and dwelt in it (Ex 40:34)
Then Solomon built a greater Temple (2Sam 6) and God promised Solomon he would dwell in that Temple (2Sam 5:11)
Then after the exile God commanded the rebuilding of the Temple and promised gold and silver for the building (see previous post).
So sort that contradiction out.[/quote]
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mt 23: 5-12
Yes, I can do big type also
And your point is?
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:21:43
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mt 23: 5-12
Yes, I can do big type also
And your point is?
[/I can write small to but this is the smallest font I have. I didn't want for the verse to quite that big but enough to make the exclamation. My post is there and you asked for scripture back up and I gave it. Did you think I didn't know what the word says. The problem is do you know scripture enough to no I was scriptural.
The scripture and the point I am making is not difficult and you know exactly what the point is. But you will dance and weasel in attempt to discredit it. And you can go right ahead because I know what the truth is and its stated. School children could understand it. So do your best. You know what denial is?
Its like a man who comes to a solid rock wall and deny that its solid rock. He can say what he wants to but its still a rock wall and he cannot pass through it
size]
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 11:57:03
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:21:43
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mt 23: 5-12
Yes, I can do big type also
And your point is?
[/
- I can write small to but this is the smallest font I have. I didn't want for the verse to quite that big but enough to make the exclamation. My post is there and you asked for scripture back up and I gave it. Did you think I didn't know what the word says. The problem is do you know scripture enough to no I was scriptural.
The scripture and the point I am making is not difficult and you know exactly what the point is. But you will dance and weasel in attempt to discredit it. And you can go right ahead because I know what the truth is and its stated. School children could understand it. So do your best. You know what denial is?
Its like a man who comes to a solid rock wall and deny that its solid rock. He can say what he wants to but its still a rock wall and he cannot pass through it
size]
Tell me what the point is. I can't read your mind. I can't see that the quote you gave relates to anything you said earlier and you didn't link it to anything. It stood alone from the rest of your reply.
Scripture is quoted to support an argument not to make weasly insinuations. If you are not making a weasly insinuation then come right out and say what you want to say and then back it up with scripture.
I'm getting fed up with you spewing out cr*p.
If you want random quotes then try this one
"Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged" (Mt 7:1-2)
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 12:10:55
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 11:57:03
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:21:43
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mt 23: 5-12
Yes, I can do big type also
And your point is?
[/
- I can write small to but this is the smallest font I have. I didn't want for the verse to quite that big but enough to make the exclamation. My post is there and you asked for scripture back up and I gave it. Did you think I didn't know what the word says. The problem is do you know scripture enough to no I was scriptural.
The scripture and the point I am making is not difficult and you know exactly what the point is. But you will dance and weasel in attempt to discredit it. And you can go right ahead because I know what the truth is and its stated. School children could understand it. So do your best. You know what denial is?
Its like a man who comes to a solid rock wall and deny that its solid rock. He can say what he wants to but its still a rock wall and he cannot pass through it
size]
Tell me what the point is. I can't read your mind. I can't see that the quote you gave relates to anything you said earlier and you didn't link it to anything. It stood alone from the rest of your reply.
Scripture is quoted to support an argument not to make weasly insinuations. If you are not making a weasly insinuation then come right out and say what you want to say and then back it up with scripture.
I'm getting fed up with you spewing out cr*p.
If you want random quotes then try this one
"Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged" (Mt 7:1-2)
Im sorry that it seemed like I was judging or sounding like a smarty. One of my many failings. I must pray about that. It does seem that you are getting a little edgy. You are not really wanting to say Im wrong and you can show me. You are leaning on this idea that I am not making the point but truly the point is right there. Your hierarchy is all show business but the apostle were humble not wanting to exalt themselves and call attention to tiles and pride of their position. I think that is pretty plain and the scriptures used make the point
Perhaps you should make your point and be scriptural.
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 12:54:17
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 12:10:55
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 11:57:03
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:21:43
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mt 23: 5-12
Yes, I can do big type also
And your point is?
[/
- I can write small to but this is the smallest font I have. I didn't want for the verse to quite that big but enough to make the exclamation. My post is there and you asked for scripture back up and I gave it. Did you think I didn't know what the word says. The problem is do you know scripture enough to no I was scriptural.
The scripture and the point I am making is not difficult and you know exactly what the point is. But you will dance and weasel in attempt to discredit it. And you can go right ahead because I know what the truth is and its stated. School children could understand it. So do your best. You know what denial is?
Its like a man who comes to a solid rock wall and deny that its solid rock. He can say what he wants to but its still a rock wall and he cannot pass through it
size]
Tell me what the point is. I can't read your mind. I can't see that the quote you gave relates to anything you said earlier and you didn't link it to anything. It stood alone from the rest of your reply.
Scripture is quoted to support an argument not to make weasly insinuations. If you are not making a weasly insinuation then come right out and say what you want to say and then back it up with scripture.
I'm getting fed up with you spewing out cr*p.
If you want random quotes then try this one
"Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged" (Mt 7:1-2)
Im sorry that it seemed like I was judging or sounding like a smarty. One of my many failings. I must pray about that. It does seem that you are getting a little edgy. You are not really wanting to say Im wrong and you can show me. You are leaning on this idea that I am not making the point but truly the point is right there. Your hierarchy is all show business but the apostle were humble not wanting to exalt themselves and call attention to tiles and pride of their position. I think that is pretty plain and the scriptures used make the point
Perhaps you should make your point and be scriptural.
See blue bit.
That's your opinion - your judgment. It's not a fact as you seem to think.
On what basis do you make that judgement?
I know many priests and none of them are 'all show business' and 'pride of their position'. They are hard working servants of God.
I have also met several bishops and none of them are 'all show business' and 'pride of their position'. They too are hard working servants of God.
You judge from ignorance.
Thankfully there is really no need to argue things such as this. All we need to do is go to the Church as the Scriptures say to do and we will get the correct answer. In this case, beautiful houses of worship and beautiful garments for the clergy have been deemed just fine - both have been bound here on earth and thus are bound in in heaven. End of story.
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:18:39
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:01:30
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:48:03
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:28:54
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 11:44:11
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:36:46
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
No, because He has not come yet, nor has His Saints been resurrected.
OK, so we are referring to different resurrections.
Rev 1 is after Jesus' resurrection. So how does your comment that he "had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him" relate to that? I would say none at all.
If, after His resurrection, Jesus is finely dressed in a white robe with a golden sash, eyes flames of fire etc, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies?
And even if the New Jerusalem is after the general resurrection, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies now?
In Rev 4 – before the general resurrection – John sees in heaven a throne, and "round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads." There were also harps and golden bowls full of incense.
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
Jesus and the disciples were In Jerusalem walking past the Temple and one said master see the temple how beautiful it is. Jesus said then to them I tell you the truth there will not be one stone left on it. Do you think God is impressed with the Vatican? I tell you also a truth, the Vatican will be a ruins.
Another truth that not one earthy flashy carnal religious thing will please Him but only men.
You spoke of Revelation and the elders in white robes. May I remind you that this is a vision and not earthly but heavenly. The church was to be humble upon the earth and not a parade of flashy religious robes surrounded by grandeur The white robes are of spiritual portrayal. Listen to me, a beggar in dirty rags for cloes will be wearing the white robe before you ever will.
Thank you for your personal and fallible opinion back up by not a single biblical reference.
No biblical reference, Maybe you didn't read. If I have post scripture and and verse then you must not be as knowledgeable of the scripture as you would like everyone to think. But as you say I will give you them. Have to leave for now but be soon.
Protestants demand scripture from Catholics. Why cannot you provide scripture?
The allusions to scripture that you give tend to be garbled as though vaguely remembered. At least if you had to find them you might get them right.
Not to be smart or disrespectful but if any one is vague here it is you. Is that the best argument you have?
McLees, is there really a point in continuing this? Winsome's mind is very clearly set.
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 13:08:48
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 12:54:17
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 12:10:55
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 11:57:03
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:21:43
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mt 23: 5-12
Yes, I can do big type also
And your point is?
[/
- I can write small to but this is the smallest font I have. I didn't want for the verse to quite that big but enough to make the exclamation. My post is there and you asked for scripture back up and I gave it. Did you think I didn't know what the word says. The problem is do you know scripture enough to no I was scriptural.
The scripture and the point I am making is not difficult and you know exactly what the point is. But you will dance and weasel in attempt to discredit it. And you can go right ahead because I know what the truth is and its stated. School children could understand it. So do your best. You know what denial is?
Its like a man who comes to a solid rock wall and deny that its solid rock. He can say what he wants to but its still a rock wall and he cannot pass through it
size]
Tell me what the point is. I can't read your mind. I can't see that the quote you gave relates to anything you said earlier and you didn't link it to anything. It stood alone from the rest of your reply.
Scripture is quoted to support an argument not to make weasly insinuations. If you are not making a weasly insinuation then come right out and say what you want to say and then back it up with scripture.
I'm getting fed up with you spewing out cr*p.
If you want random quotes then try this one
"Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged" (Mt 7:1-2)
Im sorry that it seemed like I was judging or sounding like a smarty. One of my many failings. I must pray about that. It does seem that you are getting a little edgy. You are not really wanting to say Im wrong and you can show me. You are leaning on this idea that I am not making the point but truly the point is right there. Your hierarchy is all show business but the apostle were humble not wanting to exalt themselves and call attention to tiles and pride of their position. I think that is pretty plain and the scriptures used make the point
Perhaps you should make your point and be scriptural.
See blue bit.
That's your opinion - your judgment. It's not a fact as you seem to think.
On what basis do you make that judgement?
I know many priests and none of them are 'all show business' and 'pride of their position'. They are hard working servants of God.
I have also met several bishops and none of them are 'all show business' and 'pride of their position'. They too are hard working servants of God.
You judge from ignorance.
You will have to excuse me until to tomorrow as am weary of very weak arguments. But be assured I will be baack.
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 16:46:02
Not to be smart or disrespectful but if any one is vague here it is you. Is that the best argument you have?
Best argument against what?
I'm just pointing out you have no arguments just unsubstantiated personal opinions.
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 21:44:54
You will have to excuse me until to tomorrow as am weary of very weak arguments. But be assured I will be baack.
I hope your response will include addressing post #289
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:01:30
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:48:03
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 07:28:54
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 11:44:11
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:36:46
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:28:47
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:08:09
: winsome Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 10:04:15
: LexKnight Sun Mar 06, 2016 - 09:52:33
But Ladonia, the prophets revealed even the Lord, before His resurrection, had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him. The beautifying of your assemblies is antithetical to the testimony of the Lord.
How does that nullify Rev 21-2 & Rev 21: 18 - 20?
Then read Rev 1:12-16
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
No beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him?
Revelation 21-22 is after the resurrection, but both Revelation 21-22 and Revelation 1 are visions, parables meant to portray a spiritual truth.
Both are after the resurrection
a) Are we not living after the resurrection?
b) What spiritual truths are they portraying?
c) Is it normal to use falsehoods in visions to portray spiritual truths?
No, because He has not come yet, nor has His Saints been resurrected.
OK, so we are referring to different resurrections.
Rev 1 is after Jesus' resurrection. So how does your comment that he "had no beauty or appearance that would attract people to Him" relate to that? I would say none at all.
If, after His resurrection, Jesus is finely dressed in a white robe with a golden sash, eyes flames of fire etc, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies?
And even if the New Jerusalem is after the general resurrection, how is that antithetical to the beautifying of our assemblies now?
In Rev 4 – before the general resurrection – John sees in heaven a throne, and "round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads." There were also harps and golden bowls full of incense.
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
Jesus and the disciples were In Jerusalem walking past the Temple and one said master see the temple how beautiful it is. Jesus said then to them I tell you the truth there will not be one stone left on it. Do you think God is impressed with the Vatican? I tell you also a truth, the Vatican will be a ruins.
Another truth that not one earthy flashy carnal religious thing will please Him but only men.
You spoke of Revelation and the elders in white robes. May I remind you that this is a vision and not earthly but heavenly. The church was to be humble upon the earth and not a parade of flashy religious robes surrounded by grandeur The white robes are of spiritual portrayal. Listen to me, a beggar in dirty rags for cloes will be wearing the white robe before you ever will.
Thank you for your personal and fallible opinion back up by not a single biblical reference.
No biblical reference, Maybe you didn't read. If I have post scripture and and verse then you must not be as knowledgeable of the scripture as you would like everyone to think. But as you say I will give you them. Have to leave for now but be soon.
Im so glad your reminded me. Things just moved along to fast to address. But is one I want address very much. Im still doing things but I will post this morning. Again thank you. The response may be a little longer but I will be as brief as possible
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:45:06
mclees
Here is something for you to think about:
When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon they found Jerusalem and the Temple in ruins. They set about rebuilding Jerusalem and their homes but not the Temple.
God complained:
Haggai Chapter 1
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the LORD."
3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet,
4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?
8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
The Lord punished them for not rebuilding his house.
9 Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house.
10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.
11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all their labors."
They set to work.
14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of She-alti-el, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
Chapter 2
6 Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;
7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts.
9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.'"
When they had restored the glory of God's house he then blessed them
18 Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider:
19 Is the seed yet in the barn? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you."
It is like you and your church and fellow Catholics to reach back to the old Testament to justify these things in the knew. In the Old Testament God delt with the Jews as His covenant people as the nation of Irael. They were to have respect for Gods Temple built with hands and so adorned. They were to have respect of His law and statutes Did not God always restore blessings when they repenedt and do his will.
Today and ever since Christ suffered and shed His bood to establish a brand New Covenant, Not out of respect for things we do and build with our hands. The Temple Vail was rent into by God so that we canLove and do his will because of His grace. We are now As priest and kings able to enter the throne of God in the spirit where we see Christ and find healing for our infirmities. You should not have to call for scripture and verse to know what scripture I am referring to. Heb 4:15,16 It is now that we do not see Temples built with hands but built in the Temple of ones heart. And we must maintain it daily to not neglect it for worldly appeasements. Jesus is coming back for a church without spot or wrinkle. A bride who has prepared and kept their garments clean and white. Paul said know ye not ye are the Temple and the spirit God dwells within you.
Today as always we have classes of people The Rich class who adorne themselves in finery. We have the middle class who live and adorn themselves well but not as the rich. And then there is the poor class who were hand me down clothes and live in lowly dwellings.
Who of the people does the Lord show respect and favor? Does he look upon the outward things or How well one has kept His heart for Christ and adhere evil.
The old Testament with its temple the People left in ill repair is likened to one who receives the grand gift of eternal life and salvation but neglected to maintain it so as to be able to receive the Lord on His return, Like the ten virgins that five failed to keep their lamps full, and there were the five ready and waiting. The lord opened unto them and they went in and the door was shut. The five foolish who did not keep the lams clean and full said Lord upon unto us and the Lord then said I don't know you.
I tell you right now it takes more than Sunday worship to enter Gods Kingdom. It will take more than grand cathedrals with bishops and popes in fancy religious garb to enter in. How will he find the Temple that he established in your heart?
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:20:02
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; 46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built him an house. 48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things? Acts 7: 45-50
God instructed the Israelites to build a Tabernacle of the finest materials, gold, silver, bronze and fine materials (Ex 35:2-9) made by the best craftsmen (Ex 35:10-19) and then came and dwelt in it (Ex 40:34)
Then Solomon built a greater Temple (2Sam 6) and God promised Solomon he would dwell in that Temple (2Sam 5:11)
Then after the exile God commanded the rebuilding of the Temple and promised gold and silver for the building (see previous post).
So sort that contradiction out.
are you likening commands from God to those of the RCC / builders?
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:45:06
mclees
Here is something for you to think about:
When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon they found Jerusalem and the Temple in ruins. They set about rebuilding Jerusalem and their homes but not the Temple.
God complained:
Haggai Chapter 1
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the LORD."
3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet,
4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?
8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
The Lord punished them for not rebuilding his house.
9 Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house.
10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.
11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all their labors."
They set to work.
14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of She-alti-el, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
Chapter 2
6 Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;
7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts.
9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.'"
When they had restored the glory of God's house he then blessed them
18 Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider:
19 Is the seed yet in the barn? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you."
and the moral of the story is - they were busy doing their own worldly thing (what they wanted), what was important to them, not what was important to God.
they were doing their
earthly busy work,
not the work of God. Just like so many today - making money, buying a newer bigger house, car, boat, trips etc - instead of seeking
HIS kingdom by doing
HIS work. His work is what is important, not the worldly things that man occupies his time doing.
: mclees8 Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 09:21:39
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:45:06
mclees
Here is something for you to think about:
When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon they found Jerusalem and the Temple in ruins. They set about rebuilding Jerusalem and their homes but not the Temple.
God complained:
Haggai Chapter 1
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the LORD."
3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet,
4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?
8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
The Lord punished them for not rebuilding his house.
9 Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house.
10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.
11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all their labors."
They set to work.
14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of She-alti-el, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
Chapter 2
6 Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;
7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts.
9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.'"
When they had restored the glory of God's house he then blessed them
18 Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider:
19 Is the seed yet in the barn? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you."
It is like you and your church and fellow Catholics to reach back to the old Testament to justify these things in the knew.
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
: skeeter Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 16:16:44
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:20:02
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; 46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built him an house. 48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things? Acts 7: 45-50
God instructed the Israelites to build a Tabernacle of the finest materials, gold, silver, bronze and fine materials (Ex 35:2-9) made by the best craftsmen (Ex 35:10-19) and then came and dwelt in it (Ex 40:34)
Then Solomon built a greater Temple (2Sam 6) and God promised Solomon he would dwell in that Temple (2Sam 5:11)
Then after the exile God commanded the rebuilding of the Temple and promised gold and silver for the building (see previous post).
So sort that contradiction out.
are you likening commands from God to those of the RCC / builders?
God expects, demands, that we give him of our best. From the sacrifice of Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, the sacrifices in the Temple he expects the best and he is displeased with less (see Malachi 1:6-14)
In the desert he commanded the best craftsmen, the finest materials, gold and silver. Similarly with Solomon's Temple. And God was pleased with what Solomon had done and said to Solomon "I have consecrated this house which you have built, and put my name there for ever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time." (1Kg 9:3)
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 06:09:13
: skeeter Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 16:16:44
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:20:02
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; 46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built him an house. 48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things? Acts 7: 45-50
God instructed the Israelites to build a Tabernacle of the finest materials, gold, silver, bronze and fine materials (Ex 35:2-9) made by the best craftsmen (Ex 35:10-19) and then came and dwelt in it (Ex 40:34)
Then Solomon built a greater Temple (2Sam 6) and God promised Solomon he would dwell in that Temple (2Sam 5:11)
Then after the exile God commanded the rebuilding of the Temple and promised gold and silver for the building (see previous post).
So sort that contradiction out.
are you likening commands from God to those of the RCC / builders?
God expects, demands, that we give him of our best. From the sacrifice of Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, the sacrifices in the Temple he expects the best and he is displeased with less (see Malachi 1:6-14)
In the desert he commanded the best craftsmen, the finest materials, gold and silver. Similarly with Solomon's Temple. And God was pleased with what Solomon had done and said to Solomon "I have consecrated this house which you have built, and put my name there for ever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time." (1Kg 9:3)
yes, those were commands of God at that time. why do you suddenly think it's so all fired important? because you 're using it to support the extravagance of the RCC?
did God appear to your popes and tell them to take money from the poor people to build the Vatican? buy steaks for the priests to eat while people all around us starve?
you've got your priorities all messed up. and suddenly you're all behind what God says - gotta love that!
: skeeter Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 06:31:31
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 06:09:13
: skeeter Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 16:16:44
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:20:02
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; 46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built him an house. 48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things? Acts 7: 45-50
God instructed the Israelites to build a Tabernacle of the finest materials, gold, silver, bronze and fine materials (Ex 35:2-9) made by the best craftsmen (Ex 35:10-19) and then came and dwelt in it (Ex 40:34)
Then Solomon built a greater Temple (2Sam 6) and God promised Solomon he would dwell in that Temple (2Sam 5:11)
Then after the exile God commanded the rebuilding of the Temple and promised gold and silver for the building (see previous post).
So sort that contradiction out.
are you likening commands from God to those of the RCC / builders?
God expects, demands, that we give him of our best. From the sacrifice of Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, the sacrifices in the Temple he expects the best and he is displeased with less (see Malachi 1:6-14)
In the desert he commanded the best craftsmen, the finest materials, gold and silver. Similarly with Solomon's Temple. And God was pleased with what Solomon had done and said to Solomon "I have consecrated this house which you have built, and put my name there for ever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time." (1Kg 9:3)
yes, those were commands of God at that time. why do you suddenly think it's so all fired important? because you 're using it to support the extravagance of the RCC?
did God appear to your popes and tell them to take money from the poor people to build the Vatican? buy steaks for the priests to eat while people all around us starve?
you've got your priorities all messed up. and suddenly you're all behind what God says - gotta love that!
The Catholic Church has no apologies to make as regards charitable giving and helping the poor. It is estimated that 25% of all AIDS victims worldwide are helped by the RCC. Before there was any government help on the healthcare front in this country, it was the Catholic Church that built and maintained many of the hospitals too. Many Catholic religious orders of today exist solely to help the poor, among them are the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal located in the South Bronx and of course Mother Theresa's group - and there others also, too many to mention here.
So tell me, when will you be leaving YOUR extravagant lifestyle of a comfortable home, selling all your earthly possessions, giving the resulting money away to the poor and dedicating the rest of your life to helping the unfortunate among us? Please keep me appraised of what you are doing in the future, so I can include you and your new endeavors as part of my charitable giving.
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 04:25:55
: mclees8 Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 09:21:39
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:45:06
mclees
Here is something for you to think about:
When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon they found Jerusalem and the Temple in ruins. They set about rebuilding Jerusalem and their homes but not the Temple.
God complained:
Haggai Chapter 1
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the LORD."
3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet,
4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?
8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
The Lord punished them for not rebuilding his house.
9 Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house.
10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.
11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all their labors."
They set to work.
14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of She-alti-el, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
Chapter 2
6 Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;
7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts.
9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.'"
When they had restored the glory of God's house he then blessed them
18 Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider:
19 Is the seed yet in the barn? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you."
It is like you and your church and fellow Catholics to reach back to the old Testament to justify these things in the knew.
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
Your give many questions to temp and trap me in error and diminish the truth. I speek of.
Moses authority was when certain ones challenged Moses position I will pray to the Lord about these things. The next day the challengers and their families were all swallowed up. not Buy Moses by the Lord Himself
I will go now and pray that the Lord gives me the answers so that His truth cannot be used as convenience to alter truth and bring confusion about the truth . You have not even acknowledge truth about the difference about the Old and knew Testament covenants. in my post. You have not even acknowledged the Holy Spirit who leads us to all truth. Be back soon.
: mclees8 Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 10:49:09
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 04:25:55
: mclees8 Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 09:21:39
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:45:06
mclees
Here is something for you to think about:
When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon they found Jerusalem and the Temple in ruins. They set about rebuilding Jerusalem and their homes but not the Temple.
God complained:
Haggai Chapter 1
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the LORD."
3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet,
4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?
8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
The Lord punished them for not rebuilding his house.
9 Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house.
10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.
11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all their labors."
They set to work.
14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of She-alti-el, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
Chapter 2
6 Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;
7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts.
9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.'"
When they had restored the glory of God's house he then blessed them
18 Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider:
19 Is the seed yet in the barn? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you."
It is like you and your church and fellow Catholics to reach back to the old Testament to justify these things in the knew.
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
Your give many questions to temp and trap me in error and diminish the truth. I speek of.
Moses authority was when certain ones challenged Moses position I will pray to the Lord about these things. The next day the challengers and their families were all swallowed up. not Buy Moses by the Lord Himself
I will go now and pray that the Lord gives me the answers so that His truth cannot be used as convenience to alter truth and bring confusion about the truth . You have not even acknowledge truth about the difference about the Old and knew Testament covenants. in my post. You have not even acknowledged the Holy Spirit who leads us to all truth. Be back soon.
I posed three questions, which I answered myself, to make a point to you. You cannot answer them in the affirmative because Jesus made no such condemnations.
You seem to be avoiding and direct replies to what I post. Why is that?
I have given you a scriptural case for buildings and vestments that give glory to God but you give no answer.
As to the Old and New Covenants. I do not deny there are some changes but not the total discontinuity that you seem to think.
Christianity is rooted in Judaism. As Paul said,
"But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place
to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root,
but the root that supports you." (Rom 11:17-18)
: Ladonia Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 07:59:33
The Catholic Church has no apologies to make as regards charitable giving and helping the poor. It is estimated that 25% of all AIDS victims worldwide are helped by the RCC. Before there was any government help on the healthcare front in this country, it was the Catholic Church that built and maintained many of the hospitals too. Many Catholic religious orders of today exist solely to help the poor, among them are the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal located in the South Bronx and of course Mother Theresa's group - and there others also, too many to mention here.
yes, as with your post, the catholics are top notch at giving themselves a pat on the back for doing a good work.
but no good work is worth anything without God. The RCC is also very good at deflecting people from God.
I read where Mother Teresa said it wasn't for her to tell others about Christ but to help a Hindu be the best Hindu they could be and the same with a Muslim and others who don't follow Christ. That isn't the mission given to us by Christ.
: Ladonia Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 07:59:33
So tell me, when will you be leaving YOUR extravagant lifestyle of a comfortable home, selling all your earthly possessions, giving the resulting money away to the poor and dedicating the rest of your life to helping the unfortunate among us? Please keep me appraised of what you are doing in the future, so I can include you and your new endeavors as part of my charitable giving.
I had to laugh at that 1st lime... anyone who knows me IRL would too.
the 2nd line highlighted is just as funny as I've been doing that for many years now. like a local church 'ranch' (halfway house) giving my things for their sale to raise money to feed their people. I live rather primitively but won't bore you with those details.
If you want the name of the ranch house to donate to directly, I can msg that to you.
: skeeter Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 15:00:50
: Ladonia Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 07:59:33
The Catholic Church has no apologies to make as regards charitable giving and helping the poor. It is estimated that 25% of all AIDS victims worldwide are helped by the RCC. Before there was any government help on the healthcare front in this country, it was the Catholic Church that built and maintained many of the hospitals too. Many Catholic religious orders of today exist solely to help the poor, among them are the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal located in the South Bronx and of course Mother Theresa's group - and there others also, too many to mention here.
yes, as with your post, the catholics are top notch at giving themselves a pat on the back for doing a good work.
but no good work is worth anything without God. The RCC is also very good at deflecting people from God.
I read where Mother Teresa said it wasn't for her to tell others about Christ but to help a Hindu be the best Hindu they could be and the same with a Muslim and others who don't follow Christ. That isn't the mission given to us by Christ.
: Ladonia Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 07:59:33
So tell me, when will you be leaving YOUR extravagant lifestyle of a comfortable home, selling all your earthly possessions, giving the resulting money away to the poor and dedicating the rest of your life to helping the unfortunate among us? Please keep me appraised of what you are doing in the future, so I can include you and your new endeavors as part of my charitable giving.
I had to laugh at that 1st lime... anyone who knows me IRL would too.
the 2nd line highlighted is just as funny as I've been doing that for many years now. like a local church 'ranch' (halfway house) giving my things for their sale to raise money to feed their people. I live rather primitively but won't bore you with those details.
If you want the name of the ranch house to donate to directly, I can msg that to you.
Hey, I only pointed out the things the RCC does in the way of charity not to give ourselves a "pat on the back", but to counter your low blow statement that all it does is; "take money from the poor people to build the Vatican?" and "buy steaks for the priests to eat while people all around us starve?" As for Mother Theresa, she didn't need to say anything as her actions in life spoke volumes and everyone in India and around the world knows that she did them because Christ was first in her life. We Catholics don't believe in proselytizing incessantly to those who are in need.
And it is nice to hear that you indeed live frugally, and sure send me the info about the halfway house and I will check it out.
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 04:25:55
: mclees8 Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 09:21:39
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:45:06
mclees
Here is something for you to think about:
When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon they found Jerusalem and the Temple in ruins. They set about rebuilding Jerusalem and their homes but not the Temple.
God complained:
Haggai Chapter 1
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the LORD."
3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet,
4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?
8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
The Lord punished them for not rebuilding his house.
9 Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house.
10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.
11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all their labors."
They set to work.
14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of She-alti-el, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
Chapter 2
6 Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;
7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts.
9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.'"
When they had restored the glory of God's house he then blessed them
18 Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider:
19 Is the seed yet in the barn? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you."
It is like you and your church and fellow Catholics to reach back to the old Testament to justify these things in the knew.
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
In response to your three questions
Does not a way one dresses make a statement. It is not about the garment one wears but the meaning and purpose behind it. If a clown dresses as a clown is he not saying Im a clown. What we wear or dress as most certainly speaks loudly. Im I right?
If a prostitute wears skimpy out fits and hangs around the streets a night are they not saying something about themselves?
This answers you first two questions
Will one grant temple or even St Peters save you. When vistitors walk in they are awed at the beauty and grandeur. And will some say surely God must be in this place. The day is coming and sooner than we think when every one of the things will be in ashes and ruin. This is not just opinion but a fact. St Peters is not going up to heaven, we are, and will stand before the righteous judge and then what condition will be the Temple He built be in your heart?
: mclees8 Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 10:49:47
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 04:25:55
: mclees8 Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 09:21:39
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:45:06
mclees
Here is something for you to think about:
When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon they found Jerusalem and the Temple in ruins. They set about rebuilding Jerusalem and their homes but not the Temple.
God complained:
Haggai Chapter 1
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the LORD."
3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet,
4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?
8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
The Lord punished them for not rebuilding his house.
9 Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house.
10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.
11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all their labors."
They set to work.
14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of She-alti-el, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
Chapter 2
6 Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;
7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts.
9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.'"
When they had restored the glory of God's house he then blessed them
18 Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider:
19 Is the seed yet in the barn? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you."
It is like you and your church and fellow Catholics to reach back to the old Testament to justify these things in the knew.
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
In response to your three questions
Actually I fail to see how your comments below answer any of my three questions. Nor do they address the other points I made.
But let's examine your points
: mclees8 Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 10:49:47
Does not a way one dresses make a statement. It is not about the garment one wears but the meaning and purpose behind it. If a clown dresses as a clown is he not saying Im a clown. What we wear or dress as most certainly speaks loudly. Im I right?
If a prostitute wears skimpy out fits and hangs around the streets a night are they not saying something about themselves?
This answers you first two questions
People certainly wear particular attire in particular circumstances, generally either by custom or rule.
A soldier wears a military uniform.
A judge (in the UK) normally wears a robe and a wig (as do barristers).
A flight attendant on an aircraft wears a uniform given them by the airline.
A policeman on duty wears a police uniform.
Doctors & nurses in a hospital wear different uniforms according to their rank and/or speciality.
A priest at Mass wears particular vestments as designated by the Church.
What I don't understand is why you have a problem with that.
I also cannot see how they answer my first two questions which were:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
The only answer your comments give is that you cannot give me an example of where Jesus condemns clerical dress or priests wearing robes.
So again. what is your problem?
What do you see as wrong and why?
: mclees8 Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 10:49:47
Will one grant temple or even St Peters save you. When vistitors walk in they are awed at the beauty and grandeur. And will some say surely God must be in this place.
The beauty of a church is not so that visitors are awed by it. it is a part of giving glory to God and an appropriate setting to worship him.
And your answer does not answer my question: When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
: mclees8 Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 10:49:47
The day is coming and sooner than we think when every one of the things will be in ashes and ruin. This is not just opinion but a fact. St Peters is not going up to heaven, we are, and will stand before the righteous judge and then what condition will be the Temple He built be in your heart?
The day has already been when the desert Tabernacle was discarded and Temple in Jerusalem was in ruins, and God knew that even before they was built. Yet God commanded gold and silver to be used, the finest materials and the best craftsmen.
You have failed to give an answer to my three questions - because you know that Jesus did not condemn any of these things. Yet you think it fit to condemn them although you can give no good reason.
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 04:25:55
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
since when do catholics take into consideration
all of scripture (the Bible)? they pick and choose (out of context) what they
think supports rules/laws given to them by the RCC.
Revelation
IS a vision given to John.
so, do catholics think they are
already in a heaven here on earth?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
: skeeter Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 06:31:31
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 06:09:13
: skeeter Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 16:16:44
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 10:20:02
: mclees8 Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 09:34:50
Now think about this. Steven before he was stoned convicted the Jewish hierarchy of killing the Messiah, and in his discourse he mentioned the great temple saying the earth is Gods footstool, what building could build for Him.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; 46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built him an house. 48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things? Acts 7: 45-50
God instructed the Israelites to build a Tabernacle of the finest materials, gold, silver, bronze and fine materials (Ex 35:2-9) made by the best craftsmen (Ex 35:10-19) and then came and dwelt in it (Ex 40:34)
Then Solomon built a greater Temple (2Sam 6) and God promised Solomon he would dwell in that Temple (2Sam 5:11)
Then after the exile God commanded the rebuilding of the Temple and promised gold and silver for the building (see previous post).
So sort that contradiction out.
are you likening commands from God to those of the RCC / builders?
God expects, demands, that we give him of our best. From the sacrifice of Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, the sacrifices in the Temple he expects the best and he is displeased with less (see Malachi 1:6-14)
In the desert he commanded the best craftsmen, the finest materials, gold and silver. Similarly with Solomon's Temple. And God was pleased with what Solomon had done and said to Solomon "I have consecrated this house which you have built, and put my name there for ever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time." (1Kg 9:3)
yes, those were commands of God at that time. why do you suddenly think it's so all fired important? because you 're using it to support the extravagance of the RCC?
did God appear to your popes and tell them to take money from the poor people to build the Vatican? buy steaks for the priests to eat while people all around us starve?
you've got your priorities all messed up. and suddenly you're all behind what God says - gotta love that!
It seems to me that Winsome is not using those passages merely to support the "extravagance of the RCC", (we didn't start this "discussion") but to debunk your claim that somehow the things we do are unbiblical. As usual, we merely defend against the most outrageous accusations levelled against us by folks like yourself. Winsome's points are right on and you seem to be at a loss to explain them away.
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 04:25:55
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
since when do catholics take into consideration all of scripture (the Bible)? they pick and choose (out of context) what they think supports rules/laws given to them by the RCC.
Revelation IS a vision given to John.
so, do catholics think they are already in a heaven here on earth?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
And here you go again with going on about the same things. Jesus did not mention everything and because he didn't that does not mean that they are forbidden. He came here and did what He had to do and then left the rest to the Church which He established.
At the very least our worship practice continues on with the most important thing that Jesus said for us to do, re-present and remember His Holy Sacrifice, something most Christian sects of today simply ignore..
: Ladonia Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 21:52:20
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 04:25:55
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
since when do catholics take into consideration all of scripture (the Bible)? they pick and choose (out of context) what they think supports rules/laws given to them by the RCC.
Revelation IS a vision given to John.
so, do catholics think they are already in a heaven here on earth?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
And here you go again with going on about the same things. Jesus did not mention everything and because he didn't that does not mean that they are forbidden. He came here and did what He had to do and then left the rest to the Church which He established.
At the very least our worship practice continues on with the most important thing that Jesus said for us to do, re-present and remember His Holy Sacrifice, something most Christian sects of today simply ignore..
He told us (or the Apostles did) everything that was important for us to know. there are verses about
not adding to or taking from His word. Catholics do both. they make up whatever they want to support their unbiblical practices and beliefs.
what He didn't tell us isn't forbidden? how do you know? most things the rcc makes up are forbidden.
He didn't 'leave' any unfinished business for the rcc to do. The rcc isn't His church.
no, the most important thing to do is to share His message so others might know Him and be saved.
why didn't you answer my questions? my guess is that you don't know the answers.
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
Since when do catholics take into consideration all of scripture (the Bible)? they pick and choose (out of context) what they think supports rules/laws given to them by the RCC.
That's funny, coming from a protestant who doesn't even have
all of scripture
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
Revelation IS a vision given to John.
I didn't say it wasn't.
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
so, do catholics think they are already in a heaven here on earth?
Not quite. But in the Mass we participare in the heavenly liturgy.
In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle; we sing a hymn to the Lord's glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until He, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with Him in glory (S
acrosanctum Concilium, n. 8)
The liturgy we celebrate on earth is a mysterious participation in this heavenly liturgy. (John Paul II,
Angelus, November 3, 1996) : skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
Ladonia has already answered this but I'll add my comments.
When and where did Jesus condemn these things?
Mclees is condemning these things so it is up to him to provide some biblical support for that condemnation – or just admit it is his personal preference.
Biblical support has already been provided for colourful robes/vestments and a beautiful building for the worship of God.
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04
: Ladonia Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 21:52:20
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 04:25:55
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
since when do catholics take into consideration all of scripture (the Bible)? they pick and choose (out of context) what they think supports rules/laws given to them by the RCC.
Revelation IS a vision given to John.
so, do catholics think they are already in a heaven here on earth?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
And here you go again with going on about the same things. Jesus did not mention everything and because he didn't that does not mean that they are forbidden. He came here and did what He had to do and then left the rest to the Church which He established.
At the very least our worship practice continues on with the most important thing that Jesus said for us to do, re-present and remember His Holy Sacrifice, something most Christian sects of today simply ignore..
He told us (or the Apostles did) everything that was important for us to know. there are verses about not adding to or taking from His word. Catholics do both. they make up whatever they want to support their unbiblical practices and beliefs.
what He didn't tell us isn't forbidden? how do you know? most things the rcc makes up are forbidden.
Where did he say that? Can we have chapter & verse and then we can see how much
you take things out of context.
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04
He didn't 'leave' any unfinished business for the rcc to do.
Prove it.
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04
The rcc isn't His church.
Yes it is.
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04
: Ladonia Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 21:52:20
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
since when do catholics take into consideration all of scripture (the Bible)? they pick and choose (out of context) what they think supports rules/laws given to them by the RCC.
Revelation IS a vision given to John.
so, do catholics think they are already in a heaven here on earth?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
And here you go again with going on about the same things. Jesus did not mention everything and because he didn't that does not mean that they are forbidden. He came here and did what He had to do and then left the rest to the Church which He established.
At the very least our worship practice continues on with the most important thing that Jesus said for us to do, re-present and remember His Holy Sacrifice, something most Christian sects of today simply ignore..
He told us (or the Apostles did) everything that was important for us to know. there are verses about not adding to or taking from His word. Catholics do both. they make up whatever they want to support their unbiblical practices and beliefs.
what He didn't tell us isn't forbidden? how do you know? most things the rcc makes up are forbidden.
Where did he say that? Can we have chapter & verse and then we can see how much you take things out of context.
Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.Deuteronomy 12:32 "
Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.Proverbs 30:66 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04He didn't 'leave' any unfinished business for the rcc to do.
Prove it.
the rcc didn't exist then
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04 The rcc isn't His church.
Yes it is.
the rcc didn't exist then
His church - His body of believers are those
He called out (to Himself) from the masses of the unbelievers. They put Him first, just as we do today. the rcc does not.
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:03:27
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
Ladonia has already answered this but I'll add my comments.
When and where did Jesus condemn these things?
Mclees is condemning these things so it is up to him to provide some biblical support for that condemnation – or just admit it is his personal preference.
Biblical support has already been provided for colourful robes/vestments and a beautiful building for the worship of God.
Ladonia answered the questions in my post seen here just above your post? or did he dance around them, like you just did?
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 17:14:13
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:03:27
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
Ladonia has already answered this but I'll add my comments.
When and where did Jesus condemn these things?
Mclees is condemning these things so it is up to him to provide some biblical support for that condemnation – or just admit it is his personal preference.
Biblical support has already been provided for colourful robes/vestments and a beautiful building for the worship of God.
Ladonia answered the questions in my post seen here just above your post? or did he dance around them, like you just did?
I haven't danced around anything.
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 16:54:49
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04
: Ladonia Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 21:52:20
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
since when do catholics take into consideration all of scripture (the Bible)? they pick and choose (out of context) what they think supports rules/laws given to them by the RCC.
Revelation IS a vision given to John.
so, do catholics think they are already in a heaven here on earth?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
And here you go again with going on about the same things. Jesus did not mention everything and because he didn't that does not mean that they are forbidden. He came here and did what He had to do and then left the rest to the Church which He established.
At the very least our worship practice continues on with the most important thing that Jesus said for us to do, re-present and remember His Holy Sacrifice, something most Christian sects of today simply ignore..
He told us (or the Apostles did) everything that was important for us to know. there are verses about not adding to or taking from His word. Catholics do both. they make up whatever they want to support their unbiblical practices and beliefs.
what He didn't tell us isn't forbidden? how do you know? most things the rcc makes up are forbidden.
Where did he say that? Can we have chapter & verse and then we can see how much you take things out of context.
I thought it would expose how you take things out of context and I was right.
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 16:54:49
Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Who is God addressing and for what purpose?"And now,
O Israel, give heed to the statutes and the ordinances which I teach
you..."
And Moses continues:
"Hear,
O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your hearing this day, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them. The LORD our
God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant,
but with us, who are all of us here alive this day. (Dt 5:1-3)
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 16:54:49
Deuteronomy 12:32
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
As above
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 16:54:49
Proverbs 30:6
6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
As above. It's about fidelity to the detailed instruction God gave through Moses
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 16:54:49
Revelation 22:18
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
O come on, surely you know better than that.Don't add to the prophecies in this book. Referring to the Book of Revelation.
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 16:54:49
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04He didn't 'leave' any unfinished business for the rcc to do.
Prove it.
the rcc didn't exist then
Yes it did.
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 16:54:49
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04 The rcc isn't His church.
Yes it is.
the rcc didn't exist then
His church - His body of believers are those He called out (to Himself) from the masses of the unbelievers. They put Him first, just as we do today. the rcc does not.
Yes it do exist then, and Yes it does.
Jesus left a Church to carry on his work. and make decisions in the future. We can see that in action in the book of Acts, for example the choosing of Mattia to replace Judas (Acts 1), and the ruling on circumcision at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)
-
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 16:54:49
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04
: Ladonia Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 21:52:20
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
since when do catholics take into consideration all of scripture (the Bible)? they pick and choose (out of context) what they think supports rules/laws given to them by the RCC.
Revelation IS a vision given to John.
so, do catholics think they are already in a heaven here on earth?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
And here you go again with going on about the same things. Jesus did not mention everything and because he didn't that does not mean that they are forbidden. He came here and did what He had to do and then left the rest to the Church which He established.
At the very least our worship practice continues on with the most important thing that Jesus said for us to do, re-present and remember His Holy Sacrifice, something most Christian sects of today simply ignore..
He told us (or the Apostles did) everything that was important for us to know. there are verses about not adding to or taking from His word. Catholics do both. they make up whatever they want to support their unbiblical practices and beliefs.
what He didn't tell us isn't forbidden? how do you know? most things the rcc makes up are forbidden.
Where did he say that? Can we have chapter & verse and then we can see how much you take things out of context.
Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
Proverbs 30:6
6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04He didn't 'leave' any unfinished business for the rcc to do.
Prove it.
the rcc didn't exist then
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04 The rcc isn't His church.
Yes it is.
the rcc didn't exist then
His church - His body of believers are those He called out (to Himself) from the masses of the unbelievers. They put Him first, just as we do today. the rcc does not.
Matt 18:18 says: "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven". Even if you reject the idea of the actual One Universal Church, and the power it has under the Apostolic Succession, it is clear that at the very least the Apostles themselves had the power to change things with said power given to them by God Incarnate on this earth, Jesus Christ Himself. So therefore, those three passages you cited from the OT have been superseded by Jesus's commands in the NT and have no relevance whatsoever to the argument you are trying to sustain.
: Ladonia Sat Mar 12, 2016 - 10:54:00
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 16:54:49
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04
: Ladonia Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 21:52:20
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
since when do catholics take into consideration all of scripture (the Bible)? they pick and choose (out of context) what they think supports rules/laws given to them by the RCC.
Revelation IS a vision given to John.
so, do catholics think they are already in a heaven here on earth?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
And here you go again with going on about the same things. Jesus did not mention everything and because he didn't that does not mean that they are forbidden. He came here and did what He had to do and then left the rest to the Church which He established.
At the very least our worship practice continues on with the most important thing that Jesus said for us to do, re-present and remember His Holy Sacrifice, something most Christian sects of today simply ignore..
He told us (or the Apostles did) everything that was important for us to know. there are verses about not adding to or taking from His word. Catholics do both. they make up whatever they want to support their unbiblical practices and beliefs.
what He didn't tell us isn't forbidden? how do you know? most things the rcc makes up are forbidden.
Where did he say that? Can we have chapter & verse and then we can see how much you take things out of context.
Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
Proverbs 30:6
6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04He didn't 'leave' any unfinished business for the rcc to do.
Prove it.
the rcc didn't exist then
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:09:43
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 01:35:04 The rcc isn't His church.
Yes it is.
the rcc didn't exist then
His church - His body of believers are those He called out (to Himself) from the masses of the unbelievers. They put Him first, just as we do today. the rcc does not.
Matt 18:18 says: "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven". Even if you reject the idea of the actual One Universal Church, and the power it has under the Apostolic Succession, it is clear that at the very least the Apostles themselves had the power to change things with said power given to them by God Incarnate on this earth, Jesus Christ Himself. So therefore, those three passages you cited from the OT have been superseded by Jesus's commands in the NT and have no relevance whatsoever to the argument you are trying to sustain.
Exactly. You have summed it up nicely.
: winsome Sat Mar 12, 2016 - 03:53:48
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 17:14:13
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:03:27
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
Ladonia has already answered this but I'll add my comments.
When and where did Jesus condemn these things?
Mclees is condemning these things so it is up to him to provide some biblical support for that condemnation – or just admit it is his personal preference.
Biblical support has already been provided for colourful robes/vestments and a beautiful building for the worship of God.
Ladonia answered the questions in my post seen here just above your post? or did he dance around them, like you just did?
I haven't danced around anything.
then repost the post # where you did answer those questions I asked...
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 17:14:13
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:03:27
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
Ladonia has already answered this but I'll add my comments.
When and where did Jesus condemn these things?
Mclees is condemning these things so it is up to him to provide some biblical support for that condemnation – or just admit it is his personal preference.
Biblical support has already been provided for colourful robes/vestments and a beautiful building for the worship of God.
Ladonia answered the questions in my post seen here just above your post? or did he dance around them, like you just did?
Ladonia answered your questions in post #319 and again in post #327
Moreover your questions are invalid because you have failed to show that it necessary for something to be explicitly commanded - in God's word, and in the NT, before it can be done.
Where in the Bible does it say that everything we do has to be commanded in the Bible?
Where in scripture does it say that all doctrines/practices must be explicitly stated in the New Testament?
Where in scripture does it say that Jesus produced a finished product in His Church that must not be altered in any way?
Where in scripture does it say that a practice/structure is only valid if scripture states that Jesus personally instituted it?
You can raise such irrelevant questions as yours about anything. For example:
When (and where is it found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) commandanyone to have choirs to lead singing?
When (and where is it found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to translate scripture into other languages?
When (and where is it found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to use artificial amplification for speaking or singing?
: winsome Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 12:40:48
: mclees8 Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 10:49:47
: winsome Wed Mar 09, 2016 - 04:25:55
: mclees8 Tue Mar 08, 2016 - 09:21:39
: winsome Mon Mar 07, 2016 - 08:45:06
mclees
Here is something for you to think about:
When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon they found Jerusalem and the Temple in ruins. They set about rebuilding Jerusalem and their homes but not the Temple.
God complained:
Haggai Chapter 1
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the LORD."
3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet,
4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?
8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
The Lord punished them for not rebuilding his house.
9 Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house.
10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.
11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all their labors."
They set to work.
14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of She-alti-el, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
Chapter 2
6 Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;
7 and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts.
9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.'"
When they had restored the glory of God's house he then blessed them
18 Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider:
19 Is the seed yet in the barn? Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you."
It is like you and your church and fellow Catholics to reach back to the old Testament to justify these things in the knew.
Are you wanting to discard the Old Testament as irrelevant?
May I remind you that Paul wrote:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (3Tim 3:16)
ALL scripture not just the bits that don't contradict your opinions.
And may I also remind you that both Ladonia and I drew on the New Testament – Revelation. But you wanted to discard that as just a vision. You seem to be very selective in which books of the Bible you accept from Catholics.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' (Lk 7:33-34)
Or in this case "I quoted the OT and you say 'it's too old'. I quoted the NT and you say 'it's too new'"
You referenced Hebrews so perhaps you will accept that.
Hebrews says the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:1). The writer also says that this earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23-24). Indeed we find in the heavenly sanctuary described by St. John in Revelation many things that were also present in the sacrificial worship of the first covenant:
- a victim (Rev 5:6&12)
- a robed high priest (Rev 1:13)
- other priests (Rev 4:4, etc.)
- an altar (Rev 6:9 etc.)
- lampstands (Rev 1:12 etc.)
- incense (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-5)
These can also be found in the earthly worship of the Mass, when we partake in the heavenly worship.
In addition many other elements of the heavenly liturgy in Revelation are also found in the Mass.:
- antiphonal chants (Rev 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12)
- book or scroll (Rev 5:1)
- consecrated celibacy (Rev 14:4)
- intercessory prayer (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4)
Here are a few questions:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
The answer to each question is that he didn't. And you have no cause to either.
In response to your three questions
Actually I fail to see how your comments below answer any of my three questions. Nor do they address the other points I made.
But let's examine your points
: mclees8 Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 10:49:47
Does not a way one dresses make a statement. It is not about the garment one wears but the meaning and purpose behind it. If a clown dresses as a clown is he not saying Im a clown. What we wear or dress as most certainly speaks loudly. Im I right?
If a prostitute wears skimpy out fits and hangs around the streets a night are they not saying something about themselves?
This answers you first two questions
People certainly wear particular attire in particular circumstances, generally either by custom or rule.
A soldier wears a military uniform.
A judge (in the UK) normally wears a robe and a wig (as do barristers).
A flight attendant on an aircraft wears a uniform given them by the airline.
A policeman on duty wears a police uniform.
Doctors & nurses in a hospital wear different uniforms according to their rank and/or speciality.
A priest at Mass wears particular vestments as designated by the Church.
What I don't understand is why you have a problem with that.
I also cannot see how they answer my first two questions which were:
When did Jesus condemn clerical dress?
When did Jesus condemn priests for wearing robes?
The only answer your comments give is that you cannot give me an example of where Jesus condemns clerical dress or priests wearing robes.
So again. what is your problem?
What do you see as wrong and why?
: mclees8 Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 10:49:47
Will one grant temple or even St Peters save you. When vistitors walk in they are awed at the beauty and grandeur. And will some say surely God must be in this place.
The beauty of a church is not so that visitors are awed by it. it is a part of giving glory to God and an appropriate setting to worship him.
And your answer does not answer my question: When did Jesus condemn beauty in the Temple?
: mclees8 Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 10:49:47
The day is coming and sooner than we think when every one of the things will be in ashes and ruin. This is not just opinion but a fact. St Peters is not going up to heaven, we are, and will stand before the righteous judge and then what condition will be the Temple He built be in your heart?
The day has already been when the desert Tabernacle was discarded and Temple in Jerusalem was in ruins, and God knew that even before they was built. Yet God commanded gold and silver to be used, the finest materials and the best craftsmen.
You have failed to give an answer to my three questions - because you know that Jesus did not condemn any of these things. Yet you think it fit to condemn them although you can give no good reason.
Oh I have answered them but you do not want say that. You talk about the Tabernacle discarded and the Temple was destroyed as Jesus said it would. That should say something in its self. You say that the archeological splendor of the cathedrals and basilica is built to glorify God. When did he say to build anything by the New Covenant church? Steven reminded the earth is the Lords footstool what building could you build for Him. The problem is you and your games and denials
The New Testament Temple is built in our heart. Will you deny that scripture backs that up?
: winsome Sun Mar 13, 2016 - 07:12:32
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 17:14:13
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:03:27
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
Ladonia has already answered this but I'll add my comments.
When and where did Jesus condemn these things?
Mclees is condemning these things so it is up to him to provide some biblical support for that condemnation – or just admit it is his personal preference.
Biblical support has already been provided for colourful robes/vestments and a beautiful building for the worship of God.
Ladonia answered the questions in my post seen here just above your post? or did he dance around them, like you just did?
Ladonia answered your questions in post #319 and again in post #327
Moreover your questions are invalid because you have failed to show that it necessary for something to be explicitly commanded - in God's word, and in the NT, before it can be done.
Where in the Bible does it say that everything we do has to be commanded in the Bible?
Where in scripture does it say that all doctrines/practices must be explicitly stated in the New Testament?
Where in scripture does it say that Jesus produced a finished product in His Church that must not be altered in any way?
Where in scripture does it say that a practice/structure is only valid if scripture states that Jesus personally instituted it?
You can raise such irrelevant questions as yours about anything. For example:
When (and where is it found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) commandanyone to have choirs to lead singing?
When (and where is it found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to translate scripture into other languages?
When (and where is it found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to use artificial amplification for speaking or singing?
no he didn't. he posted some made up excuses given by the RCC, not God's word.
Those are interesting questions you pose above as you
dance around answering my questions. you also
dance around God's word to avoid following it. That tells me that neither of you can give an honest Biblical answer to my questions.
I don't have to show anything and you can believe any
false teachings you'd like to - as you do.
that doesn't change that God's word
is God's word. What the RCC teaches is not.
Who is it you follow? God or the RCC? Christians follow Christ (and His word, the Bible), Catholics follow the RCC (and its word, the CCC). On judgment day who will you account to? God or the RCC? God's word says we'll be judged by His word, not that of the ecfs or RCC.
why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22
: winsome Sun Mar 13, 2016 - 07:12:32
: skeeter Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 17:14:13
: winsome Fri Mar 11, 2016 - 06:03:27
: skeeter Thu Mar 10, 2016 - 20:19:44
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command specific clerical dress to be worn?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus command priests (that didn't exist in the NT) to wear fancy, colorful robes for different occasions / services?
when (and where found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to build the Vatican? or any building that magnificent?
Ladonia has already answered this but I'll add my comments.
When and where did Jesus condemn these things?
Mclees is condemning these things so it is up to him to provide some biblical support for that condemnation – or just admit it is his personal preference.
Biblical support has already been provided for colourful robes/vestments and a beautiful building for the worship of God.
Ladonia answered the questions in my post seen here just above your post? or did he dance around them, like you just did?
Ladonia answered your questions in post #319 and again in post #327
Moreover your questions are invalid because you have failed to show that it necessary for something to be explicitly commanded - in God's word, and in the NT, before it can be done.
Where in the Bible does it say that everything we do has to be commanded in the Bible?
Where in scripture does it say that all doctrines/practices must be explicitly stated in the New Testament?
Where in scripture does it say that Jesus produced a finished product in His Church that must not be altered in any way?
Where in scripture does it say that a practice/structure is only valid if scripture states that Jesus personally instituted it?
You can raise such irrelevant questions as yours about anything. For example:
When (and where is it found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) commandanyone to have choirs to lead singing?
When (and where is it found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to translate scripture into other languages?
When (and where is it found in God's word) did Jesus (in NT) command anyone to use artificial amplification for speaking or singing?
no he didn't. he posted some made up excuses given by the RCC, not God's word.
Those are interesting questions you pose above as you dance around answering my questions. you also dance around God's word to avoid following it. That tells me that neither of you can give an honest Biblical answer to my questions.
I don't have to show anything and you can believe any false teachings you'd like to - as you do.
that doesn't change that God's word is God's word. What the RCC teaches is not.
Who is it you follow? God or the RCC? Christians follow Christ (and His word, the Bible), Catholics follow the RCC (and its word, the CCC). On judgment day who will you account to? God or the RCC? God's word says we'll be judged by His word, not that of the ecfs or RCC.
why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Those of us who follow orthodoxy are being taught God's word and your opinion on this is duly noted and rejected. All you are giving us is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less. You reject the ECF's and what they taught and follow the modernists who didn't raise their heads with their false heretical gospel for over 1500 years - and you all still can't agree! I'll stick with Christian orthodoxy, thank you very much.
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
Because the ECF's figured things out correctly, and passed on to us the truth that orthodoxy teaches. You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
Because the ECF's figured things out correctly, and passed on to us the truth that orthodoxy teaches. You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
Unbelievable ! What a twist of thinking ! ::doh::
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
Because the ECF's figured things out correctly, and passed on to us the truth that orthodoxy teaches.
there's a lot of unbiblical things in the writings of those that catholics call the ecfs.
what you consider '
orthodoxy' is nothing more than the
false teachings of the RCC.
and you
pick and choose and twist what the ecfs say to support that.
that's why you use their writings
instead of God's word.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
yes, I have strayed from the RCC
false teachings, straight into the
truth of God's word. That was about 38 yrs ago
thanks to God for circumcising my heart.
So now, as a catholic,
you consider Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John etc to be 'mere' men who reject what God 'has brought about'?
It's always amazing to read what catholics reveal about themselves
and their beliefs.
: mclees8 Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 12:31:07
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
Because the ECF's figured things out correctly, and passed on to us the truth that orthodoxy teaches. You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
Unbelievable ! What a twist of thinking ! ::doh::
it sure is!
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
::thumbsup::
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 15:42:00
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
Because the ECF's figured things out correctly, and passed on to us the truth that orthodoxy teaches.
there's a lot of unbiblical things in the writings of those that catholics call the ecfs.
what you consider 'orthodoxy' is nothing more than the false teachings of the RCC.
and you pick and choose and twist what the ecfs say to support that.
that's why you use their writings instead of God's word.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
yes, I have strayed from the RCC false teachings, straight into the truth of God's word. That was about 38 yrs ago thanks to God for circumcising my heart.
So now, as a catholic, you consider Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John etc to be 'mere' men who reject what God 'has brought about'?
It's always amazing to read what catholics reveal about themselves and their beliefs.
No my friend, the "mere men" I speak of are those who were around in the late 1500's and spouting all the gobbledeegook doctrines that you now believe. You are no Prophet of God and no type of Church leader - so you are the last person I would go to for any type of Christian truth. The false gospel of Sola Scriptura has led you astray and all I can say is thank the Lord I never have succumbed to such a thing.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 22:50:24
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 15:42:00
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
Because the ECF's figured things out correctly, and passed on to us the truth that orthodoxy teaches.
there's a lot of unbiblical things in the writings of those that catholics call the ecfs.
what you consider 'orthodoxy' is nothing more than the false teachings of the RCC.
and you pick and choose and twist what the ecfs say to support that.
that's why you use their writings instead of God's word.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
yes, I have strayed from the RCC false teachings, straight into the truth of God's word. That was about 38 yrs ago thanks to God for circumcising my heart.
So now, as a catholic, you consider Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John etc to be 'mere' men who reject what God 'has brought about'?
It's always amazing to read what catholics reveal about themselves and their beliefs.
No my friend, the "mere men" I speak of are those who were around in the late 1500's and spouting all the gobbledeegook doctrines that you now believe.
You are no Prophet of God and no type of Church leader - so you are the last person I would go to for any type of Christian truth. The false gospel of Sola Scriptura has led you astray and all I can say is thank the Lord I never have succumbed to such a thing.
you need to make up your mind... I don't go by what those in the 1500s taught. unless they taught what God's word teaches.
I see you've moved on to calling God's word '
gobbledeegook' and a
false gospel. certainly not how I view His word.
be careful, you never know who God might use as a prophet, nor would you recognize one if you heard one.
Hopefully you'll 'succumb' to His word sooner than later...
: skeeter Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 01:51:37
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 22:50:24
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 15:42:00
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
Because the ECF's figured things out correctly, and passed on to us the truth that orthodoxy teaches.
there's a lot of unbiblical things in the writings of those that catholics call the ecfs.
what you consider 'orthodoxy' is nothing more than the false teachings of the RCC.
and you pick and choose and twist what the ecfs say to support that.
that's why you use their writings instead of God's word.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
yes, I have strayed from the RCC false teachings, straight into the truth of God's word. That was about 38 yrs ago thanks to God for circumcising my heart.
So now, as a catholic, you consider Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John etc to be 'mere' men who reject what God 'has brought about'?
It's always amazing to read what catholics reveal about themselves and their beliefs.
No my friend, the "mere men" I speak of are those who were around in the late 1500's and spouting all the gobbledeegook doctrines that you now believe.
You are no Prophet of God and no type of Church leader - so you are the last person I would go to for any type of Christian truth. The false gospel of Sola Scriptura has led you astray and all I can say is thank the Lord I never have succumbed to such a thing.
you need to make up your mind... I don't go by what those in the 1500s taught. unless they taught what God's word teaches.
I see you've moved on to calling God's word 'gobbledeegook' and a false gospel. certainly not how I view His word.
be careful, you never know who God might use as a prophet, nor would you recognize one if you heard one.
Hopefully you'll 'succumb' to His word sooner than later...
I would have to say for Ladonia, beware ! the God you offend may be your own.
: skeeter Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 01:51:37
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 22:50:24
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 15:42:00
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
Because the ECF's figured things out correctly, and passed on to us the truth that orthodoxy teaches.
there's a lot of unbiblical things in the writings of those that catholics call the ecfs.
what you consider 'orthodoxy' is nothing more than the false teachings of the RCC.
and you pick and choose and twist what the ecfs say to support that.
that's why you use their writings instead of God's word.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
yes, I have strayed from the RCC false teachings, straight into the truth of God's word. That was about 38 yrs ago thanks to God for circumcising my heart.
So now, as a catholic, you consider Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John etc to be 'mere' men who reject what God 'has brought about'?
It's always amazing to read what catholics reveal about themselves and their beliefs.
No my friend, the "mere men" I speak of are those who were around in the late 1500's and spouting all the gobbledeegook doctrines that you now believe.
You are no Prophet of God and no type of Church leader - so you are the last person I would go to for any type of Christian truth. The false gospel of Sola Scriptura has led you astray and all I can say is thank the Lord I never have succumbed to such a thing.
you need to make up your mind... I don't go by what those in the 1500s taught. unless they taught what God's word teaches.
I see you've moved on to calling God's word 'gobbledeegook' and a false gospel. certainly not how I view His word.
be careful, you never know who God might use as a prophet, nor would you recognize one if you heard one.
Hopefully you'll 'succumb' to His word sooner than later...
You sure do go by what those rejectionists of the 1500's taught, because you certainly do not subscribe to orthodox Christian doctrine. Your belief started somewhere and I hate to break it to you but you were not the first one to come up with the way you now view the Holy Scriptures.
And let's be clear here, I am only calling your doctrines gobbledegook and a false gospel, not God's word. You certainly are not one to talk about what I say regarding this issue, as you have disparaged Gods word as represented by the Catholic faith tradition time and time again on these very pages.
: mclees8 Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 07:58:42
: skeeter Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 01:51:37
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 22:50:24
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 15:42:00
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
: RB Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 05:29:17
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 01:02:22why do Catholics most often use writings from the ecfs or RCC to support what they believe rather than God's word? There's a reason for that - figure it out.
Go get them sister! ::smile::
Because the ECF's figured things out correctly, and passed on to us the truth that orthodoxy teaches.
there's a lot of unbiblical things in the writings of those that catholics call the ecfs.
what you consider 'orthodoxy' is nothing more than the false teachings of the RCC.
and you pick and choose and twist what the ecfs say to support that.
that's why you use their writings instead of God's word.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
yes, I have strayed from the RCC false teachings, straight into the truth of God's word. That was about 38 yrs ago thanks to God for circumcising my heart.
So now, as a catholic, you consider Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John etc to be 'mere' men who reject what God 'has brought about'?
It's always amazing to read what catholics reveal about themselves and their beliefs.
No my friend, the "mere men" I speak of are those who were around in the late 1500's and spouting all the gobbledeegook doctrines that you now believe.
You are no Prophet of God and no type of Church leader - so you are the last person I would go to for any type of Christian truth. The false gospel of Sola Scriptura has led you astray and all I can say is thank the Lord I never have succumbed to such a thing.
you need to make up your mind... I don't go by what those in the 1500s taught. unless they taught what God's word teaches.
I see you've moved on to calling God's word 'gobbledeegook' and a false gospel. certainly not how I view His word.
be careful, you never know who God might use as a prophet, nor would you recognize one if you heard one.
Hopefully you'll 'succumb' to His word sooner than later...
I would have to say for Ladonia, beware ! the God you offend may be your own.
Is God manifest in other faith traditions? Well then, stop tearing down mine! If we could only converse in the spirit of a genuine desire to learn about how each of us comes to God, but alas we do not see that this is the goal of folks like you who come here to the Catholic section. It is quite the opposite for sure and thus I will continue to defend the Latin Rite of Christianity.
: Ladonia Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 09:16:18
: skeeter Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 01:51:37
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 22:50:24
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 15:42:00
there's a lot of unbiblical things in the writings of those that catholics call the ecfs.
what you consider 'orthodoxy' is nothing more than the false teachings of the RCC.
and you pick and choose and twist what the ecfs say to support that.
that's why you use their writings instead of God's word.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
yes, I have strayed from the RCC false teachings, straight into the truth of God's word. That was about 38 yrs ago thanks to God for circumcising my heart.
So now, as a catholic, you consider Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John etc to be 'mere' men who reject what God 'has brought about'?
It's always amazing to read what catholics reveal about themselves and their beliefs.
No my friend, the "mere men" I speak of are those who were around in the late 1500's and spouting all the gobbledeegook doctrines that you now believe.
You are no Prophet of God and no type of Church leader - so you are the last person I would go to for any type of Christian truth. The false gospel of Sola Scriptura has led you astray and all I can say is thank the Lord I never have succumbed to such a thing.
you need to make up your mind... I don't go by what those in the 1500s taught. unless they taught what God's word teaches.
I see you've moved on to calling God's word 'gobbledeegook' and a false gospel. certainly not how I view His word.
be careful, you never know who God might use as a prophet, nor would you recognize one if you heard one.
Hopefully you'll 'succumb' to His word sooner than later...
You sure do go by what those rejectionists of the 1500's taught, because you certainly do not subscribe to orthodox Christian doctrine.
so you don't know the difference between what is in God's word and what those you call the
'rejectionists of the 1500s' taught?
by
'orthodox Christian doctrine' I guess you mean what the RCC teaches
instead of God's word?
: Ladonia Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 09:16:18
Your belief started somewhere and I hate to break it to you but you were not the first one to come up with the way you now view the Holy Scriptures.
yes, my belief did start somewhere...
with God circumcising my heart and followed
by reading and studying His word - direct from His word (the Bible) not as
reinterpreted by a man made religion.
no, I'm not the 'first' one to '
come up with' the way I view the Holy Scriptures - many good people have done the same by turning to Him and reading His word rather than depending on someone else to tell them what it says.
Straight from His word, not put thru the blender of deceptive men.
: Ladonia Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 09:16:18
And let's be clear here, I am only calling your doctrines gobbledegook and a false gospel, not God's word. You certainly are not one to talk about what I say regarding this issue, as you have disparaged Gods word as represented by the Catholic faith tradition time and time again on these very pages.
what you term
'my doctrine' is
straight from God's word. so yes, you are calling
His word gobbledegook and false.
how much time a day/week do you spend reading and studying His word? or do you just depend on a few words spoken by someone else once a week?
I certainly don't disparage God's word. His word
isn't what is represented by the
Catholic faith tradition. If you want to know what He says,
go to His word and read it.
So 24 pages, has anything productive been produced here lately?
: LexKnight Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 15:01:10
So 24 pages, has anything productive been produced here lately?
Do you seriously expect anything worthy to be produced on this "Catholic Forum" when the sole purpose of some who come on it is to engage in anti-Catholic rants ?
I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.
: LexKnight Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 15:01:10
So 24 pages, has anything productive been produced here lately?
No, not really. Charges and counter-charges - God is surely disappointed in us. But what I'll never understand is why people who despise us so much even want to come here at all. There has not been one conversion of any of us Catholics to a non-orthodox belief system, not one!
: skeeter Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 13:14:08
: Ladonia Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 09:16:18
: skeeter Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 01:51:37
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 22:50:24
: skeeter Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 15:42:00
there's a lot of unbiblical things in the writings of those that catholics call the ecfs.
what you consider 'orthodoxy' is nothing more than the false teachings of the RCC.
and you pick and choose and twist what the ecfs say to support that.
that's why you use their writings instead of God's word.
: Ladonia Mon Mar 14, 2016 - 08:30:25
You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.
yes, I have strayed from the RCC false teachings, straight into the truth of God's word. That was about 38 yrs ago thanks to God for circumcising my heart.
So now, as a catholic, you consider Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John etc to be 'mere' men who reject what God 'has brought about'?
It's always amazing to read what catholics reveal about themselves and their beliefs.
No my friend, the "mere men" I speak of are those who were around in the late 1500's and spouting all the gobbledeegook doctrines that you now believe.
You are no Prophet of God and no type of Church leader - so you are the last person I would go to for any type of Christian truth. The false gospel of Sola Scriptura has led you astray and all I can say is thank the Lord I never have succumbed to such a thing.
you need to make up your mind... I don't go by what those in the 1500s taught. unless they taught what God's word teaches.
I see you've moved on to calling God's word 'gobbledeegook' and a false gospel. certainly not how I view His word.
be careful, you never know who God might use as a prophet, nor would you recognize one if you heard one.
Hopefully you'll 'succumb' to His word sooner than later...
You sure do go by what those rejectionists of the 1500's taught, because you certainly do not subscribe to orthodox Christian doctrine.
so you don't know the difference between what is in God's word and what those you call the 'rejectionists of the 1500s' taught?
by 'orthodox Christian doctrine' I guess you mean what the RCC teaches instead of God's word?
: Ladonia Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 09:16:18
Your belief started somewhere and I hate to break it to you but you were not the first one to come up with the way you now view the Holy Scriptures.
yes, my belief did start somewhere... with God circumcising my heart and followed by reading and studying His word - direct from His word (the Bible) not as reinterpreted by a man made religion.
no, I'm not the 'first' one to 'come up with' the way I view the Holy Scriptures - many good people have done the same by turning to Him and reading His word rather than depending on someone else to tell them what it says. Straight from His word, not put thru the blender of deceptive men.
: Ladonia Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 09:16:18
And let's be clear here, I am only calling your doctrines gobbledegook and a false gospel, not God's word. You certainly are not one to talk about what I say regarding this issue, as you have disparaged Gods word as represented by the Catholic faith tradition time and time again on these very pages.
what you term 'my doctrine' is straight from God's word. so yes, you are calling His word gobbledegook and false.
how much time a day/week do you spend reading and studying His word? or do you just depend on a few words spoken by someone else once a week?
I certainly don't disparage God's word. His word isn't what is represented by the Catholic faith tradition. If you want to know what He says, go to His word and read it.
If placing Jesus Christ and remembering that fateful day on Calvary (as He instructed us to do) at the forefront of our worship as we do is not believing or correctly interpreting God's word then I don't know what is.
: LexKnight Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 19:59:19
I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.
Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it? Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.
: Ladonia Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 00:47:31
: LexKnight Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 15:01:10
So 24 pages, has anything productive been produced here lately?
No, not really. Charges and counter-charges - God is surely disappointed in us. But what I'll never understand is why people who despise us so much even want to come here at all. There has not been one conversion of any of us Catholics to a non-orthodox belief system, not one!
why do catholics go on non-Catholics forums? why do catholics hate non catholics so much yet turn around and post their 'come home...' slogan? (that is so gross it makes former catholics cringe - and very grateful.)
you don't know that - there are lots of lurkers out there. and evidently you don't know that conversion is not up to the Christian, that's up to God. What we are to do is
proclaim His truth.
: Ladonia Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 01:12:30
: LexKnight Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 19:59:19
I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.
Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it? Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.
My thinking is if one is truly set in his mind, there's no reason to debate because nothing will change. Even Paul understood this when he says a heretic after a first and second admonishing reject. Why waste the time, you know?
That's why I typically don't debate with you or Catholica, you guys are truly set in your heart towards the Catholic system.
: LexKnight Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 04:26:36
: Ladonia Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 01:12:30
: LexKnight Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 19:59:19
I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.
Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it? Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.
My thinking is if one is truly set in his mind, there's no reason to debate because nothing will change. Even Paul understood this when he says a heretic after a first and second admonishing reject. Why waste the time, you know?
That's why I typically don't debate with you or Catholica, you guys are truly set in your heart towards the Catholic system.
Very well said, and I should really behave the same towards you non-orthodox believers and end these discussions. In the end, no one is going to change their minds.
: Ladonia Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 07:27:21
: LexKnight Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 04:26:36
: Ladonia Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 01:12:30
: LexKnight Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 19:59:19
I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.
Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it? Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.
My thinking is if one is truly set in his mind, there's no reason to debate because nothing will change. Even Paul understood this when he says a heretic after a first and second admonishing reject. Why waste the time, you know?
That's why I typically don't debate with you or Catholica, you guys are truly set in your heart towards the Catholic system.
Very well said, and I should really behave the same towards you non-orthodox believers and end these discussions. In the end, no one is going to change their minds.
I guess that depends on what you consider orthodox.
is that the attitude of Jesus? the apostles (really)? I think it's the easy road that catholics so often take.
but, no one forces you to post. you can go back to your rather dead normal ways on the forum with one choir member chirping to another...
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her
: skeeter Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:40:22
: Ladonia Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 07:27:21
: LexKnight Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 04:26:36
: Ladonia Wed Mar 16, 2016 - 01:12:30
: LexKnight Tue Mar 15, 2016 - 19:59:19
I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.
Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it? Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.
My thinking is if one is truly set in his mind, there's no reason to debate because nothing will change. Even Paul understood this when he says a heretic after a first and second admonishing reject. Why waste the time, you know?
That's why I typically don't debate with you or Catholica, you guys are truly set in your heart towards the Catholic system.
Very well said, and I should really behave the same towards you non-orthodox believers and end these discussions. In the end, no one is going to change their minds.
I guess that depends on what you consider orthodox.
is that the attitude of Jesus? the apostles (really)? I think it's the easy road that catholics so often take.
but, no one forces you to post. you can go back to your rather dead normal ways on the forum with one choir member chirping to another...
Delete
: LexKnight Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:49:26
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her.
no, for the sake of truth. For Christians orthodox would be
the teachings of Christ. I don't hold to
'the RCC can redefine words to mean what they want them to mean'. Neither do most Christians. Any more than the pope is the leader of all Christians. I don't know any Christians (or Jews) who consider him their 'leader'. And I'm not catholic or protestant.
noun:
orthodoxy; plural noun: orthodoxies
1. authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
"monetarist orthodoxy"
synonyms: doctrine, belief, conviction, creed, dogma, credo, theory, tenet, teaching "Christian orthodoxies"
•the quality of conforming to orthodox theories, doctrines, or practices.
"writings of unimpeachable orthodoxy"
synonyms: conventionality, conventionalism, conformism, conservatism, traditionalism, conformity "a pillar of orthodoxy"
2. the whole community of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Christians.
: skeeter Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 00:22:48
: LexKnight Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:49:26
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her.
no, for the sake of truth. For Christians orthodox would be the teachings of Christ. I don't hold to 'the RCC can redefine words to mean what they want them to mean'. Neither do most Christians. Any more than the pope is the leader of all Christians. I don't know any Christians (or Jews) who consider him their 'leader'. And I'm not catholic or protestant.
noun: orthodoxy; plural noun: orthodoxies
1. authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
"monetarist orthodoxy"
synonyms: doctrine, belief, conviction, creed, dogma, credo, theory, tenet, teaching "Christian orthodoxies"
•the quality of conforming to orthodox theories, doctrines, or practices.
"writings of unimpeachable orthodoxy"
synonyms: conventionality, conventionalism, conformism, conservatism, traditionalism, conformity "a pillar of orthodoxy"
2. the whole community of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Christians.
And who defines what the
teachings of Christ are?.
You?
Surely, under your first definition, the
teachings of Christ are the generally accepted doctrines and practices.
As to "I don't hold to
'the RCC can redefine words to mean what they want them to mean'. Neither do most Christians."
1. The Catholic Church does not "redefine words to mean what they want them to mean".
2. How do you know what "most Chrisrians do"? Have you conducted a poll?
: LexKnight Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:49:26
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her
Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.
: AVZ Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:28:34
: LexKnight Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:49:26
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her
Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.
If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.
: winsome Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:33:52
: AVZ Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:28:34
: LexKnight Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:49:26
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her
Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.
If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.
Definitely. If the RCC would not have messed up so badly, you and I would likely sit in the same pew on Sunday.
Protestantism would not have been necessary.
: AVZ Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:53:26
: winsome Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:33:52
: AVZ Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:28:34
: LexKnight Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:49:26
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her
Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.
If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.
Definitely. If the RCC would not have messed up so badly, you and I would likely sit in the same pew on Sunday.
Protestantism would not have been necessary.
That makes no logical sense.
Why would Protestantism have been necessary if the Catholic Church was OK prior to 1500? Luther only published his 96 theses in 1517. How did the Catholic Church "mess up so badly" in 17 years?
Why does Protestantism have so many doctrines that differ from the Catholic Church prior to 1500?
Why does Protestantism reject 7 books of the OT that were accepted throughout Christendom until 1500?
Why does Protestantism have so many different doctrines with itself?
: winsome Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 06:40:47
: AVZ Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:53:26
: winsome Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:33:52
: AVZ Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:28:34
: LexKnight Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:49:26
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her
Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.
If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.
Definitely. If the RCC would not have messed up so badly, you and I would likely sit in the same pew on Sunday.
Protestantism would not have been necessary.
That makes no logical sense.
Why would Protestantism have been necessary if the Catholic Church was OK prior to 1500? Luther only published his 96 theses in 1517. How did the Catholic Church "mess up so badly" in 17 years?
Why does Protestantism have so many doctrines that differ from the Catholic Church prior to 1500?
Why does Protestantism reject 7 books of the OT that were accepted throughout Christendom until 1500?
Why does Protestantism have so many different doctrines with itself?
Are we still talking about "prior say 1500" or "prior exactly 1500"?
: AVZ Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 06:51:37
: winsome Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 06:40:47
: AVZ Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:53:26
: winsome Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:33:52
: AVZ Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 05:28:34
: LexKnight Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:49:26
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her
Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.
If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.
Definitely. If the RCC would not have messed up so badly, you and I would likely sit in the same pew on Sunday.
Protestantism would not have been necessary.
That makes no logical sense.
Why would Protestantism have been necessary if the Catholic Church was OK prior to 1500? Luther only published his 96 theses in 1517. How did the Catholic Church "mess up so badly" in 17 years?
Why does Protestantism have so many doctrines that differ from the Catholic Church prior to 1500?
Why does Protestantism reject 7 books of the OT that were accepted throughout Christendom until 1500?
Why does Protestantism have so many different doctrines with itself?
Are we still talking about "prior say 1500" or "prior exactly 1500"?
"Prior say 1500" which means we are not being picky about the particular day and whether it was sometime in 1499 or 1501.
: skeeter Tue Mar 22, 2016 - 00:22:48
: LexKnight Thu Mar 17, 2016 - 14:49:26
You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her.
no, for the sake of truth. For Christians orthodox would be the teachings of Christ. I don't hold to 'the RCC can redefine words to mean what they want them to mean'. Neither do most Christians. Any more than the pope is the leader of all Christians. I don't know any Christians (or Jews) who consider him their 'leader'. And I'm not catholic or protestant.
noun: orthodoxy; plural noun: orthodoxies
1. authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
"monetarist orthodoxy"
synonyms: doctrine, belief, conviction, creed, dogma, credo, theory, tenet, teaching "Christian orthodoxies"
•the quality of conforming to orthodox theories, doctrines, or practices.
"writings of unimpeachable orthodoxy"
synonyms: conventionality, conventionalism, conformism, conservatism, traditionalism, conformity "a pillar of orthodoxy"
2. the whole community of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Christians.
No, for orthodox Christians that would be people who believe in the Christian faith as it was practiced since the early days of the church after the Apostles were gone, i.e. believing in things like the Apostolic Succession and the Sacramental way of Christianity. Catholics have an orthodox belief as do the Eastern Orthodox, but you subscribe to none of what your printed definition says - you deny it all in favor of quite a different biblical interpretation. Thus, you are not an "orthodox" believer.
Word definitions are not as easy as they look, because words change meaning over time. So, to understand what someone is saying, one must understand the time and culture of the utterance not to mention language translation issues. ::headscratch::
As an Orthodox (capital O for eastern Orthodox) Christian, let me say what Orthodoxy has meant historically. The original church after 100 or so years was called the Catholic Church and the Orthodox faith. (They are both Greek words, my church's native language). ::announcment::
Orthodox has two simultaneous meanings -- both "right word" and "right worship." When the church divorced in 1050 or so, the Catholic got the term "Church", while the Orthodox got the term "faith."
Today, we use the word orthodox to mean true (as opposed to the faith of imposters or heretics or honestly mistaken). I don't mind that meaning because my church does have the right faith.