Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[elvisman]

So scripture is not bible based? Does not the written Word come from spiritually moved men who are submissive to the will of God? And once it is written, does it not stand as proof and reproof. And once written, does it not become bible based? I believe the apostles were chosen for the purpose of bringing about the Word of God into writing, establishing it from what was already written on the fleshly tablets of their hearts. Yet, it was written.

Let me ask you this, when Jesus rebuked the devil in the wilderness, he said, it is written.

So my question is, was it written in heaven or on earth?

You would not have the Good News of the Gospel - and the entire New Testament had it not been for the Catholic Church.

**As for written word of God vs. the written word - you sound like all those that Paul had to remind over and over again when he equated the oral and written word to be EQUALLY binding (2 Thess 2:15, **2 Thess. 3:6, ****2 Tim. 2:2, ****1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14).

Here are a few places where Jesus himself and the Gospel writers relied on the word of God - NOT written down:
Matt. 2:23
He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazorean."

Matt. 23:1-2
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
(Oral Mishna/Jewish Tradition)

1 Cor. 10:3-4
All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.
(Jewish Rabbinic tradition)

2 Timothy 3:8
Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so they also oppose the truth–people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith.
(Jewish Rabbinic tradition)

 

[heiscominginthe]

You show me where the Bibles commands us to confess our sins TO JESUS and I will show you where the Bibles commands us to confess our sins TO ONE ANOTHER.

placido

Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this, your wickedness, and ask God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.

Romans 10:9 that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10:10 For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Hebrews 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus;

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

[heiscominginthe]

You would not

have the Good News of the Gospel - and the entire New Testament had it not been for the Catholic Church.

Trust me, the CC did not have a monopoly on scripture. The tried to confiscate all scripture, but the tighter they closed door, the more it slipped through the cracks. I suggest you examine how many copies were used in comprising the King James bible. And I don’t believe the CC handed over any copies.

As for written word of God vs. the written word - you sound like all those that Paul had to remind over and over again when he equated the oral and written word to be EQUALLY

 

[placido]

Can a thought be used as proof or does the proof occur once it has been written?

Written or oral, a proof remains a proof.

How do you suppose Moses came to the information which he wrote down? Could there not have been a copulation of writing already in existance and passed from generation to generation? Would that not make good sense?

Sorry, but I have to tell you: you are in error, underestimating God’s power, thinking His Word won’t survive if not written down.

placido

 

[placido]

Heiscominginthe, before responding to your non-proofs, I need to make something clear. I asked you specifically to show me where the where the Bibles commands us to confess our sins TO JESUS (NB: “to Jesus”).
You responded:

Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this, your wickedness, and ask God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.

Now, where is JESUS in that verse?

Romans 10:9 that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10:10 For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Oh my! You don’t even know the difference between “confessing Jesus as Lord” and “confessing sins”?

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Now, where is JESUS in that verse?

Hebrews 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus;

That verse has to do with “confessing Jesus”, not confessing sins.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Yes, “if we confess our sins”. That is what I am telling you. We have to “confess your sins” to one another (James 5:14-16), and “one another” includes priests (or elders if you like).
So, you talked a lot but ended up proving nothing.

placido

 

[placido]

Trust me, the CC did not have a monopoly on scripture.

Maybe not, but being the only existent Church at that time, who else had the Christian Scriptures?

The tried to confiscate all scripture, but the tighter they closed door, the more it slipped through the cracks.

A pity, some people do still believe that a lie, if repeated a thousand times, would become the truth. Beginning with Jerome in the 5th century the Church translated the Bible in several indigenous languages in Europe. Does that not seem strange for a Church allegedly hostile to the Bible to invest so much effort in translating the same Bible, thereby making it more accessible to ordinary people?
But no, you prefer a lie instead …

I suggest you examine how many copies were used in comprising the King James bible. And I don’t believe the CC handed over any copies.

Ah, copies of copies of copies … made by Catholic monks – sure!
The irony is: the more one defends the KJV, the more one proves what he is trying to disprove. If true Christianity depends on a true Bible, and the KJV is the only true Bible (and King James was born in 1566), then how do we explain the existence of Christianity before the King James?

placido

 

[elvisman]

Trust me, the CC did not have a monopoly on scripture. The tried to confiscate all scripture, but the tighter they closed door, the more it slipped through the cracks. I suggest you examine how many copies were used in comprising the King James bible. And I don’t believe the CC handed over any copies.

Oh - pleeease don’t tell me you’re going to try to argue THAT old, tired, debunked myth. The Church NEVER tried “confiscate” all Scripture.
What she did was to attempt to stamp out errors.

The reason Bibles were chained to pulpits in the Middle Ages is because they were hard to come by. Do some history research and you’ll find that until Guttenberg invented the printing press in the 15th Century, they were handwrtten by faithful Catholic monks. You couldn’t just pick one up at your local Bible store.

[Whether written on the tablets of the heart or on paper, it was written.
Nice dance - but something figuratively “writtenon the tablets of the heart” is not the same as physically written on paper.
As I posted earlier, can a thought be proven or does the proof come once written down?

That’s a weak point. A thought can be spoken and never written down - and STILL be the truth. Do you know the every word to every prayer uttered by Jesus? Does that mean that it is not the truth?
Give me a break.
[/quote]

 

[heiscominginthe]

placido;5581188]Heiscominginthe, before responding to your non-proofs, I need to make something clear. I asked you specifically to show me where the where the Bibles commands us to confess our sins TO JESUS (NB: “to Jesus”).
You responded:

Now, where is JESUS in that verse?

So you don’t believe Jesus is God. It is written, no man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

Oh my! You don’t even know the difference between “confessing Jesus as Lord” and “confessing sins”?

When a man asks Jesus to forgive his sins, is that not the same as accepting, confessing Jesus Christ is Lord?

Yes, “if we confess our sins”. That is what I am telling you. We have to “confess your sins” to one another (James 5:14-16), and “one another” includes priests (or elders if you like).
So, you talked a lot but ended up proving nothing.

placido

Where does it say, confess our sins to eachother in the above verse? And yes, it is good we confess our sins to eachother, yet do not mistake this with our born again, our salvation experience.

For if a man is not born again, it is his prayer of confession to Jesus that brings forgiveness of sin if the man truly believes with all of his heart.

 

[heiscominginthe]

placido;5581315]Maybe not, but being the only existent Church at that time, who else had the Christian Scriptures?

All who were born again, who did as what is written in Revelations 12

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

A pity, some people do still believe that a lie, if repeated a thousand times, would become the truth. Beginning with Jerome in the 5th century the Church translated the Bible in several indigenous languages in Europe. Does that not seem strange for a Church allegedly hostile to the Bible to invest so much effort in translating the same Bible, thereby making it more accessible to ordinary people?
But no, you prefer a lie instead …

It’s a pity you do not.

Ah, copies of copies of copies … made by Catholic monks – sure!
The irony is: the more one defends the KJV, the more one proves what he is trying to disprove. If true Christianity depends on a true Bible, and the KJV is the only true Bible (and King James was born in 1566), then how do we explain the existence of Christianity before the King James?

placido

Was it you who made the statement that most of scripture thoughout the regions was in Latin? Yet, most of what I have found lean toward Greek.

As for the King James, I suggest your read Daniel chapter 12. Study what occured in AD 321 and then add 1290 years. It says in Daniel that the daily sacrifice was taken away. I suggest you search for what this means. Then maybe you will believe.

 

[onenow1]

So confessing my sins to Jesus will not save me?

onenow1. Excuse the butting in but ! Isn’t that up to Jesus ? And isn’t this in
John 20: 22-23. The reason for confessing our sins to man; And Jesus,did in fact tell the Apostles [men] to forgive and retain sins .

1. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

1. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

heis how can you retain a sin unless you knew what it was ?

Peace and God Bless
onenow1opcorn:

 

[placido]

So you don’t believe Jesus is God. It is written, no man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

I believe Jesus is God, but He is not God the Father.

When a man asks Jesus to forgive his sins, is that not the same as accepting, confessing Jesus Christ is Lord?

Not necessarily. Because I can ask you to forgive me without confessing you as Lord.

Where does it say, confess our sins to eachother in the above verse?

James 5:16

And yes, it is good we confess our sins to eachother, yet do not mistake this with our born again, our salvation experience.

Of course I don’t mistake the two.

placido

 

[placido]

All who were born again, who did as what is written in Revelations 12

And it so happens that all of them were Catholics then.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Again, all martyrs in the first five centuries were Catholic. Try and name any one - he was Catholic.

Was it you who made the statement that most of scripture thoughout the regions was in Latin? Yet, most of what I have found lean toward Greek.

No. It was not me.

As for the King James, I suggest your read Daniel chapter 12. Study what occured in AD 321 and then add 1290 years.

The fatal error with that is this: if the church was taken over by the pagans in 321 as the SDA suggests, then the Bible is a product of the pagans.
Ok, for the fun of it, I added 321 and 1290 and came up with 1611 – so what? That was the year the first KJV was published with its 73 books. Now the KJV has 7 books less. What happened?

It says in Daniel that the daily sacrifice was taken away. I suggest you search for what this means. Then maybe you will believe.

What makes your arguments somewhat absurd is this. You are using chapters and years as set by the Catholic Church.

placido

 

[placido]

As for the King James, I suggest your read Daniel chapter 12. Study what occured in AD 321 and then add 1290 years. It says in Daniel that the daily sacrifice was taken away. I suggest you search for what this means. Then maybe you will believe.

I have re-checked Church History and found nothing noteworthy in the year 321. May be you can shed more light.

placido

 

[heiscominginthe]

onenow1. Excuse the butting in but ! Isn’t that up to Jesus ? And isn’t this in
John 20: 22-23. The reason for confessing our sins to man; And Jesus,did in fact tell the Apostles [men] to forgive and retain sins .

 

[onenow1]

what man can say that sin is or is not forgiven, for only God can see into the heart of a man.

=onenow1. Absolutely no-one but God can see into the hearts of men; And perhaps your sins were forgiven, but that in itself I think,would be a sin of presumption. But ! heis the question was on John 20: 22-23 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

The question was :heis how can you retain a sin unless you know what it is ?

quote=onenow1. As it should be !

Peace and God bless
onenow1

[/QUOTE]

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: You are so transparent, son! I said that who you confess your sins to, is a matter of personal choice I believe that those of us who have not, do not and will not confess to a priest, are doing just fine in the Body of Christ! We have trials and tribulations(John 16:33), and we stumble, but because of Jesus’s completed work on the Cross, we can come to the Father through Christ(1John 1:9) And I am boasting in the Lord, not in myself; it’s not about me, it’s all about Him. Witnessing, feeding, clothing, it’s all included in His commands to us! And it is really irrelevant as to where my church was when America was founded, it is more important where my heart is for Him! And, John 20:21-23, no matter how you dress it up, does not say,“Go confess your sins to a priest!”. It is interpreted that way! And don’t you get excited, thinking about sharing Jesus with a stranger, or seeing someone’s face light up when you hand them a box of food, or a Bible?

 

[1beleevr]

onenow1: Did the apostles receive the Holy Spirit twice(John 20:23)), or twice(Acts 2:4). If they had received the Holy Spirit in John 20, why were they hiding in the upper room, fearful of the Sanhedrin? You will notice that once they received the Holy Spirit, they became bold, and went forward with the Good News; subsequently adding new believers to the Body of Christ And anyone can interpret John 20:20-23, to mean whatever they want. Jesus did not EXPLICITLY say:“Compel those who have sin, to go to a priest, once a week, or more, to confess their sins.” I believe this was another example of MAN adjusting scripture to meet his/her needs or beliefs:thumbsup:

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: You are so transparent, son! I said that who you confess your sins to, is a matter of personal choice I believe that those of us who have not, do not and will not confess to a priest, are doing just fine in the Body of Christ! We have trials and tribulations(John 16:33), and we stumble, but because of Jesus’s completed work on the Cross, we can come to the Father through Christ(1John 1:9) And I am boasting in the Lord, not in myself; it’s not about me, it’s all about Him. Witnessing, feeding, clothing, it’s all included in His commands to us! And it is really irrelevant as to where my church was when America was founded, it is more important where my heart is for Him! And, John 20:21-23, no matter how you dress it up, does not say,“Go confess your sins to a priest!”. It is interpreted that way! And don’t you get excited, thinking about sharing Jesus with a stranger, or seeing someone’s face light up when you hand them a box of food, or a Bible?

Sorry, friend, you’re dead wrong - especially when it comes to John 20:21-23, Matt. 16-19, 18:18. The Bible says you’re wrong and the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers say you’re wrong.

**There come a point where one must say, "I’ve stated my case - and now my opponent must discern for himself." **I’ve come to that point.

**You have been shown the Scriptures that prove my (the Church’s) points. **
**You have been told and shown the quotes of the Early Church Fathers on the subject. **
You have chosen to turn a blind eye.
Like the old saying goes - there is none so blind as the one who refuses to see.

The Church teaches that nobody outside the Church can be saved, unless that person is invincibly ignorant of the truth because the Church is the Body of Christ and he is the Head.
Choosing to be blind is not the same as being blind . . .

PS - how would YOU interpret these passages?
20:21-23, Matt. 16-19, 18:18

 

[1beleevr]

heiscominginthe: Good job with scripture in post#978:thumbsup::thumbsup:And I agree, that in Acts 8:22, Jesus is in that scripture, as He was fully God and fully man. The trinity is, of course, made up of three entities, existing as one, working together. The reason Jesus was able to do miracles, was because of the indwelling of the Spirit of God within Him! And in Romans 10:9-11, Jesus is referred to as Lord. Christ was in the beginning(John 1), and all through the Bible. Jesus is our High Priest, and we confess our sins to Him(even though they were ALL forgiven on the Cross), and He intercedes for us to the Father! So, because we have our Jesus, why do we need a priest? James 5:16, does say,“Confess your sins to ONE ANOTHER, and PRAY for one another, so you may be healed. For the fervent prayers of a righteous man produce many good results.” And 1John 1:9, does not specifically name a mere mortal man, as the conduit through which your confession should go. Therefore, one can believe that, “For if we confess our sins to HIM, He is faithful to forgive us of all unrighteousness.”, as being Jesus. It is however, possible to read that same passage(free will&choice) and deduce, that John is exhorting us to visit a priest for forgiveness. Jesus is MY High Priest of confession, with a direct line to the Father, no waiting! He even makes house calls:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: In response to post#976, “I I could speak all the languages of this earth, but did not love others, I would be as a loud gong, clanging, or a cymbal crashing.”(1Cor 13:1) That’s what this post sounds like. And recount for me the last time YOU, elvisman, went to a public place, or knocked on the door of a stranger, and shared the Good News of Christ; or gave them food, showed compasion, or just showed them God’s love? What does Mark 10:45 mean to you? And you, like many others(too countless to name), errantly(not surprisingly) deduce that when God’s servants rejoice about the opportunity to reach out to those less fortunate, that they are boasting in their own good works. Not bragging on myself, but I have made anonymous donations, or prayed for people without being in their presence, without telling anyone. I don’t know about you, but when I have the honor and privilege of serving my Lord, by helping others, I find it very difficult to keep it to myself. Jesus told us not to keep our LIGHT under a bushel, but to let it shine! So, you can chastise me all you want, but I will continue to extol the glorious works of my Saviour in me, and thank Him endlessly for allowing me to go boldly forward in His Name, showing others, what God can do for them:thumbsup: