H
Hisalone
Guest
So you deny the priesthood of believers,
- Status
H
Hisalone
Guest
YADA what was the context of entire houshold. Was their any evidence of infants?
Peter says he saw the Spirit fall on the Gentiles and thus asked who was he to deny them Baptism.
I have never seen “the Spirit” fall on an infant.
Peter again preached repent and be baptised.
Can an infant repent?
I agree as one commentarian who wrote that there appears to be some evidence of infant baptism in the early church but it does not appear widespread.
The Didache refers only to adult baptism.
Some folks claim Ploycarp was baptised some say no.
The Lord showed me that infant baptism is helpfull to those parents whose children or godparents whose godchildren have fallen into out of Godly life in that the prayers said at the Baptism can be used in a powerfull intercessary prayer. The prayers now said at Catholic baptisms today are a lot less effective in this regard than the prayers lets say 20 years ago. the Catholic Church has softened them.
H
Hisalone
Guest
John, John, John
Unless you are born again
Was he talking about a physical rebirth?
NO
John, John, John,
I am the door
Was he talking about a physical door?
I am the sheepgate
Was he talking about a physical sheepgate?
I am the way the truth and the life
Are these about physical things.
But as I said previously you have made up your mind and I have made mine.
So my question to you is can we disagree without being disagreeable/
A
agangbern
Guest
My opinion is not important. What is important is what God says. Seek for His opinion.
A
agangbern
Guest
You gave those quotes in response to Elvisman’s challenge for bible verses which would say that Jesus was talking only metaphorically about the bread being his flesh. But hose quotes do not respond to the challenge made. For those quotes are clearly figurative, and his hearers understood them that they were figurative as they are.
But when Christ said of the bread,“This is my body " There was no indication that He was talking figuratively. And when he said, My flesh is food indeed”, his hearers understood Him that He was not talking figuratively. They understood Him to mean what He said. Hence, many started to leave Him because of what He said. And Jesus did not object saying, “Oh, don’t get me wrong! I was only talking figuratively.”
H
Hisalone
Guest
You said everyone has an opinion. Are you not part of that group?
H
Hisalone
Guest
No
Christs listeners did not understand.
They split in two groups one group rejected Jesus because they did not understand. And the second group who did not understnd but trusted and had faith in Jesus so they stayed.
E
elvisman
Guest
I will ask you one more time.
**Can you please address the question I posed to you? **
Can you please show me – with Scripture verses – where Jesus wasn’t talking about his flesh and blood? Can you show me where it says he was speaking metaphorically? I am more than willing to hear your explanation.
You keep accusing me of being disagreeable but it’s YOU that is disagreeable. I am willing to have intelligent dialog on the matter as I stated before.
I asked you - as a Protestant who believes that the Bible alone is our last court of appeal - to show me these things. If you can’t then you have a faulty and misguided sense of interpretation, as I believe all Protestants do.
If you have “made up your mind” on this issue, as you have stated, I would hope that you have the evidence to back up your beliefs - because I do.
A
agangbern
Guest
Which group? Yes, sure, I have an opinion. But it is not my duty to share my opinion to you.
Y
YADA
Guest
No, both groups did understand Jesus. They understood that he said what he meant. You are right that they split … one group said this was a “hard saying” … how could Jesus give his very body and blood for food … and human flesh and blood violated the law [cannibalism being strictly prohibityed] they left …
The second group understood Jesus the same way but chose to stay … When asked if they would leave as well Peter responded [not untroubled] with where else could they turn … that Jesus had the words of eternal life … Jesus was the Messiah … an understanding sent from God that offset the unsettling message … and thus they stayed “in spite of the message” not because they understood it differently
You are reading into the passages the metephorical explaination … it is not there …
And entire households includes infants, children and servants … all … and baptizing entire households included all of these persons …
Yes the most common persons to bebaptized were those who heard the word…but over time as more and more people were born of “Christians” the common time of entry into the family of God was as an infant … the same as with Abraham, the initial poeple “marked” by the Lord [through circumcision] were adults [free persons and indentured] and children and any infants present … from that time the norm became the infants with the occassional adult …
A
agangbern
Guest
Who said that they "rejected Jesus because they did not understand" ? That obviously again is only your opinion.
H
Hisalone
Guest
My friend the very same scripture you claim is literal is in fact speaking of spitual concepts not physical reality. It is in light of the metaphors throughout the book of John that you can understand John 6.
26 Jesus answered them and said, **“Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. **27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
**gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." **34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” 35 And Jesus said to them, **"I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. **36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.
40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 41** The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” **43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ F24 Therefore everyone who has heard and learned F25 from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. **47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me F26 has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. **49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. **50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” **52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, F27 and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven–not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” 61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve,** “Do you also want to go away?” **68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? **You have the words of eternal life. **
F
flameburns623
Guest
Papal bulls do NOT automatically rise to the level of ‘infallible teaching’. A pope must indicate that he is formally intending to define a doctrine infallibly to make a proclamation infallible. While these citations do point to the possiblity that the ordinary teaching of the Popes has changed over the centuries, it does NOT prove that the Church has changed her infallible teachings.
By the way: the idea that non-Catholics may be saved by ‘baptism of desire’ does NOT date back to Vatican II. It predates that Council by hundreds of years, apparently having been taught clear back in 381 by St. Gregory of Nazianen. See the following:
geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/bapdesire.htm
cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_stalph.html
romancatholicism.org/trent-baptism.htm
Hope that helps!
H
Hisalone
Guest
A
agangbern
Guest
We should realize that “speaking of spiritual concepts” is not the same as “speaking metaphorically”. When Jesus said of the bread, “this is my body”, it was both spiritual and literal. When Jesus said, Do not labor for the food that perishes, he was referring to that food which physically filled their stomachs. But the food which is his flesh is not intended to fill the stomach. In fact we only eat a very small piece of it. That is the spiritual food that He spoke (words) to us. And according to Him, it is his body.
H
Hisalone
Guest
No they did not understand. Any practicing Jew would not or could not eat human flesh nor drink human blood. So even in the context of your belief they did not understand.
So only male children were part of the covenant because females were not circumcised?
OT immersion was just that immersion not sprinkling. So you OT references breaks down.
H
Hisalone
Guest
See my reponse to the immediate above post.
If your not going to give your opinion any more why should I give you mine?
P
pete_29
Guest
In three Gospels, Jesus took bread, broke it and said, " This is My Body, which will be given for you."
In three Gospels Jesus said, " This is the cup of My Blood. The Blood of the new and everlasting Covenant, to be shed for your sins."
Either these Words are true or Jesus lied. You choose. I believe Him.
DOUBLE CHECKMATE. THE BOARD EXPLODED AND YOU CAN’T PLAY ANYMORE !!!
A
agangbern
Guest
What did they not understand? They did not understand why and how this man Jesus, would encourage them to eat His flesh! That is hard for them to understand. But they all clearly understood that He was referring to his flesh.
Don’t be quick in making a conclusion. I never said that I would not give my opinion. I simply said that it is not my duty to give you my opinion. The two statements do not mean the same.
Y
YADA
Guest
But they did understand that he was speaking about eating his body and blood … they just did not know where else to turn because they recognized that his teachings were the teachings of everlasting life, they recognized [Peter’s confession] that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah …
Of course the female children were people of the covenant … the parallel to baptism still holds … Abraham was given the command to circumsize his entire household including servants and captives, children and infants … from that time the male children were circumsized on the eigth day … The marks of faith are not withheld from the children of God …Jesus commanded that the children be allowed to come…
I made no referene to immersion or sprinkling in te OT … and Scripoture tells us that John was baptizing at the Jordan … No mention is made whether these people entered the Jordan [proper], whether they we fully clothed, naked or partioally clothed … in many places th Jordan River is only inches deep, not deep enough for “full immersion” … One thing I am sure of, the container was not a porcelin bath tub … Persoanlly I was baptized in a River … [not the Jordan … but a river in Oregon
God’s County - don’t you know!] Lack of copius quantities of water aside … it is an action of the Holy Spirit which is not limited by precise measuments of H2O- Status