Praying to the Buddha

[LilyM]

No, no, no. Your church claimed it was founded on ONE apostle.

I trust Scripture to be a guide and is my main spiritual text. But, it is not the be all end all to revelation. Christ still speaks to his people today outside of Scriptures.

If scripture is your guide then why don’t you trust it when it says Peter is THE Rock (Jesus changed his NAME to Rock for heaven’s sake - why not call ALL the Apostles ‘Cephases’ if they were all equally significant?) and then again when it says Peter alone holds the Keys to the Kingdom AND alone has the task of feeding the sheep and lambs?

Cleansing is both corporeal and individual. Of course we make mistakes. We ask forgiveness and they are gone. I just believe that after death people can still receive forgiveness.

Great, ignore all Jesus’ warnings about ‘that day comes like a thief in the night’, all the warnings about being prepared at any time like the wise bridesmaids, about praying constantly - heck, even after death if we’re truly sorry we’ll be forgiven! Rubbish. The potential for forgiveness and repentance comes to a screeching halt when we die.

I’m not sure what “rot” is. No, his baptism wasn’t symbolic. He truly baptized with water (as Scripture points out), but the Lord baptized with fire. John’s baptism was a necessary precursor to the baptism of the Lord.

And what did baptism MEAN when John did it? Did he ever SAY he or it on its own procured remission of their sins? No. It meant repentance, sure. But if it had been anything more than a symbol of that repentance then John’s baptism itself would’ve been the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire which he himself said only Jesus could give.

My point (which you missed) is that John the Baptist was anointed by God to do what he did without having Paul, Peter, John the Apostle or anyone else giving him that authority. God also gave the prophets authority to preach and perform miracles, which they did. The point was they didn’t need a church authority to do so. Uh…I never said John was greater John himself said that he was unworthy to loosen the Lord’s sandals.

John the Baptist was an OLD TESTAMENT prophet, remember, the last and greatest of the Old Testament prophets. He was before the New Covenant, before the Last Supper, before the crucifixion and resurrection, before the time of the Apostles.

Or at least before the time when Christ gave all authority to them and sent them forth just as the Father had sent Him. With the power to do no less than bind and loose heaven itself. “Who hears you hears me, who rejects you rejets me”. What does all this mean if not that the Apostles from that point on could act in His name and with, largely, the authority that He Himself possessed - which He freely gave to them?

If so, we ignore them - and their successors to whom we KNOW they passed on their power, even in Acts Matthias was chosen to replace Judas - at our peril. Since Jesus doesn’t promise that you or I or our individual so-called divine inspirations (which are most often the total opposite) are proof against the gates of Hell.

Again, I’m not sure why you’re on this tangent about the power of Christ. I agree with you. Christ was and is the Son of God and has authority over everything as given by the Father.

Son of God? More - others in the Old Testament were called Sons of God. Jesus is God incarnate. You know, I don’t think in this whole thread before you’ve ever said either of those things about Jesus, and that’s what irked me - by calling him merely ‘Lord’ you’re belittling Him whom Thomas called Lord AND God.

And then saying Jesus was submissive to John? He never was - He ordered John to baptise Him when John would’ve refused - how is that submission? Again you’re belittling Him by saying so.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

If scripture is your guide then why don’t you trust it when it says Peter is THE Rock (Jesus changed his NAME to Rock for heaven’s sake - why not call ALL the Apostles ‘Cephases’ if they were all equally significant?) and then again when it says Peter alone holds the Keys to the Kingdom AND alone has the task of feeding the sheep and lambs?

I guess you could ask the same question of an Orthodox Christian. I would have the same answer. It’s a matter of interpretation and pride on your part.

Great, ignore all Jesus’ warnings about ‘that day comes like a thief in the night’, all the warnings about being prepared at any time like the wise bridesmaids, about praying constantly - heck, even after death if we’re truly sorry we’ll be forgiven! Rubbish. The potential for forgiveness and repentance comes to a screeching halt when we die.

His warnings were meant to spur us to do good, to be righteous and live every day for Him, expecting Him to come at any moment. He also said that these things would take place before the apostles died. It’s apocryphical text and metaphor. Tell those that have died and are stuck on the earth who find peace and cross to the other side. Because from my standpoint your view is uncompassionate, unforgiving and mean-spirited.

And what did baptism MEAN when John did it? Did he ever SAY he or it on its own procured remission of their sins? No. It meant repentance, sure. But if it had been anything more than a symbol of that repentance then John’s baptism itself would’ve been the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire which he himself said only Jesus could give.

It meant exactly what i said it did earlier. It was a cleansing, just like the flood cleansed those in Noah’s day. Water is cleansing as you yourself would admit to in Christian baptism. So, why is it a hard stretch on this issue? How can you claim John’s baptism was “symbolic” when your church itself claims that water baptism cleanses original sin? I’m baffled that your church accuses protestants of such rampant symbolic theology yet you do the same thing. Rubbish I say.

John the Baptist was an OLD TESTAMENT prophet, remember. He was before the crucifixion and resurrection, before the time of the Apostles, or at least before the time when Christ gave all authority to them and sent them forth just as the Father had sent Him. With the power to do no less than bind and loose heaven itself. What does all this mean if not that they from that point on could act in His name and with, largely, the authority that He Himself possessed - which He freely gave to them?

The apostles were no greater than John the Baptist. It’s a matter of calling and service, not of virtue and power. The prophet Elijah called down fire from heaven and consumed the priests of Baal. Was Matthias, Philip and the others any greater in virtue and power? No. God possesses the power of the universe and so does the Lord Jesus. They work in tandem, not as opposites.

Son of God? More - others in the Old Testament were called Sons of God. Jesus is God incarnate. You know, I don’t think in this whole thread before you’ve ever said either of those things about Jesus, and that’s what irked me - by calling him merely ‘Lord’ you’re belittling Him whom Thomas called Lord AND God.

And then saying Jesus was submissive to John? He never was - He ordered John to baptise Him when John would’ve refused - how is that submission?.

No, my dear. They were called “sons of God”, not “Sons of God”. There is only one Son who is God incarnate, fully God and fully man in hypostatic union. He is Lord over all and Sustainer of all things. You seem to be irked and angered more by the challenge to your church rather than Christ.

He is Lord! He is the Son of God and God the Son! Is he not? You condemn me for giving these titles that He truly is? You want to fight, that’s all. I don’t belittle Jesus in the least. How can you know my relationship with Him? How do you know my faith and belief in Him?

You take what you want and disregard my repeated explanations. I suppose our conversation is over.

I wish you only peace and blessings in your life…

MW