Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[John_oxios]

david ruiz;8519736]

Hello JO. You are quick to judge , just like protestants ? A better method is shown by younger Catholics who simply would ask , “source please”. To which I would answer, "I believe in the book

, “The Jesuits”, by Manfred Bartel. However , I am double checking it for you.

Quick to judge? your not new at this! You have over a thousand posts, no one ask you for a reference (source)? I have been asking for references! Insufficent data is not my error, Your suppose to make known you point. I’m suppose to know what your speaking about when you say it happened in the 1500’s?
If I said, ‘what about the 20th century’ how would you reply?

David Ruiz, "I am sorry .I will give the benefit of the doubt, that I am totally not explaining myself right

.

Me the benefit of the doubt?  If you had been specific I would look it up.

i.e your reference to Manfred Batrtel, actually you’re close it’s Manfred Barthel.
The book is written in an anti-Catholic bias It’s not historical fact. In the gene of Angels and Demons & The DaVinci Code, I guw=ess not even Holly wood interested in this Fictional story.

Here’s a review:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesuits-History-Legend-Society-Jesus/dp/0688028616

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars Written from an anti-Catholic perspective, April 30, 2001
By D. A. Hosek (Santa Monica, CA USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Jesuits: History and Legend of the Society of Jesus (Paperback)
When I was young I used to get Luther and Lucifer confused since the two names were generally spoken in the same tone of voice in the highly Catholic neighborhood where I grew up. **I get the sense that Barthes, a German Lutheran, has much the same attitude towards Catholics **despite a promising forward. A subtle anti-Catholic prejudice (fueled by a corresponding anti-Lutheran prejudice on the part of his Catholic neighbors) pervades the book which is a largely negative view of the Jesuit order although not quite at the paranoid fantasy level of a Jack Chick publication.

You form an opinion from ONE BOOK? and think that it is the absolute Gospel Truth??
You probably believe in Obi Wan Kenobi also.

Con’d

 

[John_oxios]

You want me to know what specifically are speaking about? Sure!

But specifically you’re incorrect on all counts!

David Ruiz, for you totally evade my historical point of where the term “protestant” came from.

Huh? Every first grader knows where the term Protestant comes from.

David Ruiz, 'Have you heard of the peace of Augsburg-1555 ?-established the principle that the rulers of the individual German states would decide whether their subjects would henceforth be Catholics or Lutherans-“ciuis regio,eius regio-whose the region, his the religion”. I believe this ended a war, (hence peace at Augsburg").

When you said the 1500’s, you were speaking of Augsburg? Ohh There were many things that happened in the 16th century besides Augsburg!!

For instance: During the 16th century, Spain and Portugal explored the world’s seas and opened world-wide oceanic trade routes. Large parts of the New World became Spanish and Portuguese colonies, and while the Portuguese became the masters of Asia’s and Africa’s Indian Ocean trade, the Spanish opened trade across the Pacific Ocean, linking the Americas with Asia.

Copernicus proposed the heliocentric universe

I don’t hear you complaining about the Ottoman (Muslim) Empire trying to take over all of Europe, killing all christians alike!! I guess you have nothing against Muslims, who are still persecuting Christians today.
But the very faith your parents brought you up to believe in you hate?

But the peace was about coming together to turn back the Turkish:

1530"
The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V had called on the Princes and Free Territories in Germany to explain their religious convictions in an attempt to restore religious and **political unity in the Holy Roman Empire **and rally support against the Turkish invasion. It is the fourth document contained in the Lutheran Book of Concord.

David ruiz;
Again, I am a relative novice, but I believe it was this “peace” that fell apart and princes, even bishops, parishioners would no longer have this freedom to chose. So tell me, is this fable ? Is this an attack on your faith ?

Where do you get your historical facts from? Comic books, bathroom walls??
The Problem witht the peace was the Protestants themselves:
Peace of Augsburg 1555

The document itself had critical problems. While it gave legal basis for the practice of the Lutheran confession, it did not accept any of the Reformed traditions, such as Calvinism, or for Anabaptism.
Although the Peace of Augsburg was moderately successful in relieving tension in the empire and increasing tolerance, it left important things undone. Neither the Anabaptists nor the Calvinists were protected under the peace, so many Protestant groups living under the rule of a Lutheran prince still found themselves in danger of the charge of heresy. (Article 17: “However, all such as do not belong to the two above named religions shall not be included in the present peace but be totally excluded from it.”)

**These minorities did not achieve any legal recognition until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. **The intolerance towards Calvinists caused them to take desperate measures that led to the Thirty Years’ War.

One of the more notable measures was the Second Defenestration of Prague (1618) in which** two representatives of the fiercely Catholic Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II were thrown out of a castle window in Prague.**
ask.com/wiki/Peace_of_Augsburg

Catholics representatives being thrown out the window… seems the Protestants weren’t interested in Peace, I guess will blame the Catholic Church for actions also??

Please read your History for yourself… anti-Catholics/ Protestants will change history for their own bias.

How hard is it too look up the facts and see the lies ? Protestants want to blame all their faults on the Papacy, not the corrupt people, not the rulers, nor the Politicians… nor men who have little to do with religion or faith.

You alone can convince anyone who looks up the facts convert from Protestant to Catholic! I thank for affirming what I already am aware of {rotestants will lie about the Catholic Church, it beliefs to confuse and bamboozle the weak sheep.

Cont’d

[/QUOTE]

 

[John_oxios]

Cont’d from post #420 pg 28:

Hello JO. . So tell me, is this fable ? Is this an attack on your faith ? Is a protestant crying/protesting for his freedom persecution of The Catholic Church ? You have written much , thank-you and would love to discuss point by point, but thought we could stick to what Catholics here posted about the origins of the term “protestant”. I did not come here to attack you , as you imply, but to respond to a point in history that was only partially portrayed by Catholics . If this offends you, I will stop and let your partial version of the history of “protestant” term stand.

 

[Nicea325]

John oxios;8514373:

First , thank-you for implying that I have the dignity to have “personal” feelings, convictions, experiences . I am concerned that if I share them you will consider them an attack, a protest. They are not. I found the Catholic Church gave me a false gospel. She gave me some great fundamentals - trinity, calvary, judgment, heaven, hell,sin .With me, she failed in terms of rightly defining justification/sanctification . Basically, I was not born again when She said I was, and the requirements for salvation differed . I was not a practicing Catholic when I became “protestant”. I had not done anything spiritual /Catholic for several years.

God bless,

I found the Catholic Church gave me a false gospel

And kindly tell me which non-Catholic church out of THOUSANDS which exist has presented the full deposit of faith and gospel?

 

[John_oxios]

Hi Maria. It is up to 50,000 and climbing. At least you are kindly generous , for some militant, passionate Catholics have it at millions, that is, every protestant believer is a denomination to him/herself.

poppy cock!!!

 

[John_oxios]

John oxios;8514899:

Certainly that would be one of 26,000 interpretations of the Eucharist -a mere piece of bread, and I see your point of not making sense . Now, what of the other 25,999 possibilities other than transubstantiation ?

Hello david,
Your point is moot,
You speak of Apostolic authority/ succession, how many versions did the Apostles Teach? To be of Apostolic authority someone has to send you with authority. the Catholic Church is the Authority Christ left in His name til he returns.

One LORD, One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, That’s what Sacred Apostolic Scripture States! One Faith is not equal to 25,999.

I challenge you put 4000 hrs. in of honest Biblical study, actual Catholic teachings and still be Protestant!

What about Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, what did the Apostles Teach? That’s what matters! After consecration it is not a piece of bread, but it is changed.

The Hebrews had to eat the Lamb to be saved the night of the Passover, singing kumbaya wouldn’t save them by itself.

Moses was told by God, to tell the Israelites to remember that night to recall and relate it to their children. (deut 4:10-14).

In Remembering, people who were not present PARTICIPATE.

In remembering the UNFAITHFUL are recalled to fidelity.

In remembering the FULL Understanding and Experience is Realized.

Deu 29:12-14 that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God makes with you this day;
that he may establish you this day as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
Nor is it with you only that I make this sworn covenant,
**but with him who is not here with us this day as well **as with him who stands here with us this day before the LORD our God.

Among the people of the Exodus and later the nation of Israel and still later the Disciples of Christ, experiences of God’s intervention were shared and remembered and passed on to the next generation by those who were there.

The religious interpretation of Life by the people of Moses’ day became a living tradition. Stories were repeated,sayings became familiar commemorations became rituals.

So became of Apostolic Tradition.

God bless,
john

 

[John_oxios]

interesting quote(SP’s) .where can i find it and read more on ?

Hello David,
Look him up!!! I got it from wikipedia, at least I gave you his name, his credentials, and where he works. AND he’s not a Catholic! That’s something to begin with, I copied and pasted the first sentence [In red]: to get here:

Boston University religion scholar Stephen Prothero argues that non-denominationalism hides the fundamental theological and spiritual issues that drove the division of Christianity into denominations in the first place behind a veneer of “Christian unity.” He argues that non-denominationalism encourages a descent of Christianity—and indeed, all religions—into comfortable “general moralism” rather than being a focus for facing the complexities of churchgoers’ culture and spirituality. Prothero further argues that it also encourages ignorance of the scriptures, which in turn reduces overall religious literacy, increasing the potential for inter-religious misunderstandings and conflict.[2]

Here’s the URL /www.ask.com/wiki/Non-denominational_Christianity

Now scroll down the page til you see** Criticism **in Bold black letters

God bless.
John

 

[John_oxios]

david ruiz;8519844:

Actually, I am curious to know if you have a real answer to this question. Do you know?

hello Rosie,
Somehow it seems in your post # 425, you’ve attributed a quote from David Ruiz, in my quotation from post #424. *
i.e.

Quote:
But how can eating a mere piece of bread in an unworthy manner bring Judgment upon oneself?
Certainly that would be one of 26,000 interpretations of the Eucharist -a mere piece of bread, and I see your point of not making sense . Now, what of the other 25,999 possibilities other than transubstantiation ?

It ought to read like this:

My question is:

John Oxios: But how can eating a mere piece of bread in an unworthy manner bring Judgment upon oneself?

David Ruiz reply is:

Certainly that would be one of 26,000 interpretations of the Eucharist -a mere piece of bread, and I see your point of not making sense . Now, what of the other 25,999 possibilities other than transubstantiation ?

I believe in One interpretation of Scripture and that is the Teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, which was received from Christ himself, passed to the Apostles.

if you can correct your post, I’d appreciate it, if not will have to live with it!
Thank you God bless
John

 

[John_oxios]

John oxios;8514899:

You are absolutely correct .The bible does not say that by confessing you are saved .It says** that if you believe AND confess you are saved.**

Perhaps one could post the entire scripture correctly, but it is most certainly not just confessing.
Thank-you-may our quivers be full.

Sorry to read that .Makes one almost believe in predestination, how the same household can produce different “arrows”. Indeed, spirit is thicker than blood. But his race isn’t finished yet, so there is still hope

God bless,

Belief is faith in action, When you confess with your lips every head shall bow avery knee bend @ the name of Jesus, That’s why when you were young to give a reverential head bow when we say or hear the name of Christ Jesus.

Exd 34:8 And Moses made haste** to bow his head** toward the earth, and worshiped.

Rom 14:11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.”
Phl 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

** Confession is not Biblical you say, EH?**

Try reading your Bible and stop believing everything you hear about false teachings of the Catholic Church:

Confessing/proclaiming Christ is a profession of faith. it’s not a confession of sin

newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

No Catholic believes that a priest, simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God…
To Peter He says: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). Later He says to all the Apostles: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matthew 18:18). As to the meaning of these texts, it should be noted:

that the “binding” and “loosing” refers not to physical but to spiritual or moral bonds among which sin is certainly included; the more so because
the power here granted is unlimited — “whatsoever you shall bind, . . . whatsoever you shall loose”;
the power is judicial, i.e., the Apostles are authorized to bind and to loose;
whether they bind or loose, their action is ratified in heaven. In healing the palsied man Christ declared that “the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins”; here He promises that what these men, the Apostles, bind or loose on earth, God in heaven will likewise bind or loose. (Cf. also POWER OF THE KEYS.)

The priest celebrates our forgiveness with us through Christ

But Jesus empowers the Apostles to forgive sins:

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Okay, why would Christ give the grace to forgive sins to the Apostles if there is no confession of sin?

Jo 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

not confessing our sin is the same as saying we have no sin! There is no such thing as personally confessing sin between you and God, it’s not done that way, never has been. Ever hear of ‘Yom kippur?’ day of atonement??

Yom Kippur is the day to ask forgiveness for promises broken to G-d, the day before is reserved for asking forgiveness for broken promises between people, as G-d cannot forgive broken promises between people.

An important part of the Yom Kippur service is the “Vidui” (Viduy) or confession. The confessions serve to help reflect on ones misdeeds and to confess them verbally is part of the formal repentance in asking G-d’s forgiveness. Because community and unity are an important part of Jewish Life, the confessions are said in the plural (We are guilty).

Even Christ participated in Yom Kippur, Temple Sacrifice… as a pious Jew

How do you atone for your sins? Who gives you absolution? How do you make restitution for sin?

Justification by faith alone? Where’s that in the bible? Luther did away with confession why? He never worthy enough for God’s forgiveness, and it troubled him greatly. He taught on the writings of Paul, and justification by faith was/is a term that’s been in the Catholic faith for centuries before Luther… He just added ‘alone’ to it. Why do protestants ned Five alone’s anyway… alone means ‘alone’
To fre himself of Guilt he taught that no matter what you do, no matter how you sin, no matter how many commandments you break… The Holy Spirit will always have your Back, and God’s grace abounds. he did away with repentance,

Without repentance of sin there is no forgiveness, We have to confess and ask for forgiveness! and restitution for sin also must be made. Now that’s biblical!

Mat 7:7 "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

God bless,
John

 

[david_ruiz]

Hello David,

Look him up!!! I got it from wikipedia,

 

[John_oxios]

John oxios;8522963:

Hello David,
Did .Thank-you .Asking him for verification. Last time anyone used wiki they got laughed at on CA Forum.

I’m not crazy about wikipedia, but it’s useful for definitions, This is why persons laugh
From wikipedia itself:

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose.

As Far as catholic Teachings and matters of faith it shows some bias in its writings, that’s why Catholics in particular laugh at it as a “credible reference”

You want to know about the Catholic Church go to a Catholic resource.
I only looked up ‘non-Denominational’ to get a bearing on what they are or believe. But what I quoted was a viable reference because it listed the source and Author.

God bless.
john

 

[david_ruiz]

Belief is faith in action,

I thought belief and faith were synonomous.

When you confess with your lips every head shall bow avery knee bend @ the name of Jesus, That’s why when you were young to give a reverential head bow when we say or hear the name of Christ Jesus.

Don’t follow. Romans 14:11- “Every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God”. I think this is prophetic, that every one will do this during His reign. I believe that it does not mean you have to EVERY time you hear His name.

** Confession is not Biblical you say, EH?**

You must be confusing me with someone else. Who said confession is not biblical ? “No where in the Bible does it say You are saved by confessing with your lips Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior’ alone”. This is your quote .I agreed . Asked if you could give quote where belief AND confession save you. You did not , but here it is :Romans 10:10 -“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness: and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”. Matt10:32 - “Whosever confesseth me before men I will also confess before the father which is in heaven”. I do not see “alone” here, but I also do not see baptized, confirmed, die without mortal sin, confess /eucharist once a year, all by priest /bishop with apostolic succession etc. etc… Don’t see that either. What does "whosoever " mean to you ?

Okay, why would Christ give the grace to forgive sins to the Apostles if there is no confession of sin?

See, now that is a good question. Is there an instance where the apostles heard confessions ? Is there any 1-2 century writing showing anyone hearing confessions ? Don’t think so, but that is why your question is good . The answers must lie outside of modern day confessional. It is the gospel that regenerates and cancels out sins power and judgement .There is power and forgiveness in sins thru Christ by faith even baptism for some. Is not original sin wiped away at your baptism ? It is like the prodigal son, there was confession directly to the father and indeed his sins were wiped away, as far as the east is from the west . Indeed, by the authority of scriptures when one receives the gospel his sins are forgiven . But I repeat myself. I believe several gospels end with the great commission: preach the gospel (repentance and remission of sins),baptize etc.

COLOR=“Red”]An important part of the Yom Kippur service is the “Vidui” (Viduy) or confession.

**

Very good .But just so no one thinks this anything close to CC’s confessional, read the following :No one specifically confesses, not even when one personally brings a sacrifice .He lays his hand on the animal before the priest slays it , symbolizing transference of sin/judgement to animal. CA Radio had a messianic Catholic Jew on and she was asked if Jews had/have anything like confessional and she said no , and gave the Yom kippur rite and the personal rite , and no one confesses to a “priest/rabbi”.Yom Kippur is for general sins and unknown sins.
Perhaps the most important addition is the confession of the sins of the community, which is inserted into the Shemoneh Esrei (Amidah) prayer. Note that all sins are confessed in the plural (we have done this, we have done that), emphasizing communal responsibility for sins.There are two basic parts of this confession: Ashamnu, a shorter, more general list (we have been treasonable, we have been aggressive, we have been slanderous…), and Al Cheit, a longer and more specific list (for the sin we sinned before you forcibly or willingly, and for the sin we sinned before you by acting callously…) Frequent petitions for forgiveness are interspersed in these prayers. There’s also a catch-all confession: “Forgive us the breach of positive commands and negative commands, whether or not they involve an act, whether or not they are known to us.”

How do you atone for your sins? Who gives you absolution? How do you make restitution for sin?

More good questions, and I am sure you have heard the answers. Atone, absolution comes first from God thru Christ atonement .He makes us one with God. He reconciles with God His blood expiates the matter .When you have a personal relationship with Him, when you believe He is alive and real, and dwells within us,He is as real as He was when He walked with the apostles .Why would I go to an apostle /successor when Jesus is still with us ? Yes, we can confess our faults one to another.I do not equate “fault” with “sins” per se…This intimacy with God in this regard is quite old testament and new. There may be a place for corporate confession/repentance… Now, if it against another , hopefully the same pattern is made possible, that is, as what Christ does for us, we do unto others. Restitution is just that restitution , to another.**

 

[david_ruiz]

Oops, it must have had something to do with how the quotes were represented when I replied to your post. Yeah, I meant the question about the Eucharist.

 

[John_oxios]

I know .That is what most Catholics stated on the real presence thread . They are very surprised that I have a symbolic/figurative/spiritual rendering of John 6. I understand your viewpoint(CC’s) .Too bad you don’t understand mine (understand , not agree). I can repeat yours, but can you cite our reasons ? Again, it is late, but the posts are there. I believe John 6 starts out figuratively (bread -never die /thirst) and ends figuratively(bread from heaven). Only the unbelievers took it literally .

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David,
The Eucharist is not a symbol, that’s what Baptists say it is.

 

[John_oxios]

Hello JO… Fact is your dictionary meaning has no conflict with your “Catholic” definition . As far as the Jewish definition by Wouk, not sure , if he speaks for all. Otherwise, I like Catholic definition .Perhaps you should understand better that a symbol, even in non Catholic communion, can be a sacred experience,

[/QUOTE]

 

[John_oxios]

Hello JO. Strange that when when we mention symbol you take a definition destitute of spiritual application but when you use it, it is quite spiritual . Fact is your dictionary meaning has no conflict with your “Catholic” definition . As far as the Jewish definition by Wouk, not sure , if he speaks for all. Otherwise, I like Catholic definition .Perhaps you should understand better that a symbol, even in non Catholic communion, can be a sacred experience, to convey unseen realities, and that indeed Christ is really present congregationally, and personally, in truth and spirit(actually happening).

 

[John_oxios]

…

You must be confusing me with someone else. Who said confession is not biblical ? “No where in the Bible does it say You are saved by confessing with your lips Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior’ alone”. This is your quote .I agreed . Asked if you could give quote where belief AND confession save you. You did not , but here it is :Romans 10:10 -“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness: and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”. Matt10:32 …I do not see “alone” here, but I also do not see baptized, confirmed, die without mortal sin, confess /eucharist once a year, all by priest /bishop with apostolic succession etc. etc… Don’t see that either. What does "whosoever " mean to you ?

Hello David,

Now I’m confused? Proclaiming Christ is a proclamation of Faith! And then there is confession of SIN. Jesus empowers the disciples the disciples empower men by laying of hands, these are the Bishops read Timothy, the bishops could not be everywhere, as the Church grew in number, so they empowered men who were elders in the Church by laying on of hands… all our priests and Bishops today can trace all the way to Christ, who they are through empowered them.

That’s called Apostolic succession, Now you keep complaining about Catholic confession. You can’t confess between you and God alone! That’s ridiculous! We all can play the Lord get me out of this, I’ll never do it again! If we have to confess {proclaim] Jesus with our voice, then how much more so we voice our sin aloud to the Church. to get back on the straight path!

Is there an instance where the apostles heard confessions ?

It sees to me you spend more time reading Anti catholic propaganda then reading Catholic teachings, why not compare the two? Read the anti stuff, and then compare it to the real catholic teaching. You may learn something other than dislike, i.e. you blaming the RCC for the thirty yr. war between Protestants., rulers and Politicians of Germany.

What came first? The N.T. Bible or the Church? John explains Not everything could be written, so what was not written was practiced, mystagogy.

In ancient mystery religions, a mystagogue would be responsible for leading an initiate into the secret teachings and rituals of the cultus. The initiate would often be blindfolded, and the mystagogue would literally “guide” him into the sacred space.
In the early church, this same concept was used to describe the bishop, who was responsible for seeing to it that the catechumens were properly prepared for baptism. Homilies given to those in the last stages of preparation, and which deal with the Sacraments are called “Mystagogical Homilies.” Sometimes these mystagogical instructions were not given until after the catechumen had been baptized. The most famous of these mystagogical works are the “Mystagogical Homilies” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the work, “On the Mysteries” by St. Ambrose of Milan.

You don’t see in the Bible that it took early newcomers 3 yrs to receive communion after baptism do you? But that’s what they practiced!
Why three yrs? Because that’s how long Christ taught the Apostles, #3 is a totality.

Apostolic Tradition means passed down by practice and by Oral Tradition; There was no New Testament writings they were taught and explained by verbal communication, by practice and then Paul begins writing letters 50 a.d. Mark is written to protect Oral tradition, as well as the other three Gospels

I

s there any 1-2 century writing showing anyone hearing confessions ? Don’t think so, but that is why your question is good . The answers must lie outside of modern day confessional. It is the gospel that regenerates and cancels out sins power and judgement .

david Ruiz, There is power and forgiveness in sins thru Christ by faith even baptism for some. Is not original sin wiped away at your baptism ? It is like the prodigal son, there was confession directly to the father and indeed his sins were wiped away, as far as the east is from the west . Indeed, by the authority of scriptures when one receives the gospel his sins are forgiven . But I repeat myself. I believe several gospels end with the great commission: preach the gospel (repentance and remission of sins),baptize etc.

Baptism is once,and it’s for sins prior to baptism… there are those Royals in Medi-evil times who keep a priest handy to baptize them in case they were struck accidentally. Even Constantine, as Emperor, waited to his dying breath to avoid dying with sin.

Witholding baptism is in itself a sin. Because it is a command of God.

con’d

 

[John_oxios]

…

David Ruiz, Very good .But just so no one thinks this anything close to CC’s confessional, read the following :No one specifically confesses, not even when one personally brings a sacrifice .He lays his hand on the animal before the priest slays it , symbolizing transference of sin/judgement to animal.

But it is practiced nonetheless…

King david said, and knew animal sacrifice did not remove sin,

But it was practiced to point man to his sin… Sin cost them

Sin will take you farther than you want to go
sin will keep you longer than you want to stay
sin will cost you more than you’re willing to pay!

They made confession of sin by going to temple, and then they were required to make restitution for their sin, there’s more than ONE person, and it was never between the sinner and God alone!

Show me a biblical precedent for personal confession!!

CA Radio had a messianic Catholic Jew on and she was asked if Jews had/have anything like confessional and she said no , and gave the Yom kippur rite and the personal rite , and no one confesses to a “priest/rabbi”.Yom Kippur is for general sins and unknown sins.

Messianic Catholic Jew? and their Temple started when 1999? They have People can call themselves whatever they want… It doesn’t make them a Catholic or aapostolic and then Temple Sacrifice was stopped @ the destruction of the Temple prophesied by Christ.

let’s read between the lines:

Messianic Jew:
Evangelistic fundamentalists using a Jewish gloss or glamour in order to entice Jews into Evangelical Christianity. Who don’t believe in RCC practices anyway

What’s that got to do with Catholic Confession? Nothing I point a biblical and you bring back a radio statement untraceable, with a new age religion, compared to a two thousand yr. old Practice which had been foreshadowed in Scripture since Moses? That’s nonsense!

ewtn.com/expert/answers/confession_of_sin_to_a_priest.htm

Confessionals are fairly new, they started in Ireland 1850’s and when millions of Catholics came on this continent to free of English persecution and mistreatment, [it wasn’t just the famine but the English starved the Irish by taking everything from them.]
They brought the Confessionals along with them… That’s called a Cultural tradition not an Apostolic Tradition! Arguing over confessionals is just plain stupid!!

…

David ruiz,
'This intimacy with God in this regard is quite old testament and new. There may be a place for corporate confession/repentance… Now, if it against another , hopefully the same pattern is made possible, that is, as what Christ does for us, we do unto others. Restitution is just that restitution , to another.

Let’s put this 'personal relationship" {not biblical by the way, Christ stressed community, not individuality] confession to the test.

I go out and rob an armored car, don’t hurt anyone, but get away with One hundred thousand dollars… I go to my non denominational congregation confess to all that I have sinned… and you all answer, OH confess to Jesus your personal savior for forgiveness, and believe you receive it"
Wow, isn’t that great, hardly any repentance, no restitution… and my great faith saves me? hogwash.

1Jo 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jo 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Yes there is Sin which is Moratl sin!

1Jo 5:16 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.

1Jo 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Does this sound sound like sin is personal?

David Guzik, www.Blue letter bible

commentary:

. (16-17) Praying for a sinning brother.

If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

a. If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin . . . he will ask: When we see a brother in sin, John tells us the first thing to do is to pray for that person. All too often, prayer is the last thing we do, or the smallest thing we do in regard to our brother having a difficult time.

If you view sin as persoanl between you and God, this third party, maybe the whole congregation is crashing yo’party!

The catholic Church has real genius in its teachings, without confession to the Church, protestants have spent yrs developing thrapists, pschologosts, group therapy to get some kind of peace in their lives… Me? I go see a preist, who with the guidance of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands all the back to the Apostles treats me with the forgiveness of God and gives me absolution as through his instrument of Christ himself. God used a donkey as his instrument, why not His priesthood.

Even an ***, can recognize something of the LORD;

Num 22:23 And the *** saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; and the *** turned aside out of the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the ***, to turn her into the road.
God bless,
John

 

[david_ruiz]

 Symbols like McD's golden arches spiritual?

Hello JO.There you go again making symbolism trite with secular meaning, avoiding the beautiful spiritual definition you shared.

Christ was Jewish of Course what they Jew believe does matter, ‘Reality distilled’ = really happening, i.e thier passover: they became one with their ancestors in the experience.

Yes, we have communion, of the saints.That is true for all sides/interpretations of Communion.

Unfortunately you have missed the picture the writers of the Gospel have painted with the guidance of the Holy Spirit

. The picture is there for all interpretations .I would say the Catholic one misses a few things.The priest does not ask for transubstantiation nor does he re-present Calvary to the Father .The apostles remembered and gave thanks to the Father, for the Son -hence eucharist- which is not “mystery”, nor “sacrifice” but an offering of thanksgiving.

Remember to understand the N.T you have to be familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures… which is the source the Apostles had to work from to Prove Christ as the Messiah.

That’s right .Transubstantiation is not in Hebrew scriptures. The Passover had symbols. The bread and wine and lamb were symbolic, and were eaten in remembrance of the first Passover AND a looking forward to the real Lamb. Hebrews did not believe they were partaking of the original Lamb of Exodus , nor of the Future Lamb of Calvary. It was a real, literal, spiritual experience however.

.

You still haven’t replied about Num. 27 and God’s appointing of One man Joshua to lead God’s people as a Head shepherd, to follow after Moses ?

Don’t recall the question ,may have missed it .It is a different topic .As far as leaders and heirarchy, we both believe in elders ,teachers ,bishops/presbyters.It must be the Pope thing. Yes, that is quite old testament.Whom did Jesus constantly say would replace Him ? Oh, yes, the Holy Spirit, and in such a dispensation like none other before. Totally new. So much so that we are now all priests, as originally intended in O.T. before they sinned in the desert. So much so that now , “every neighbor will teach his neighbor”. He will pour out His Spirit on us. O.T. saints never spoke in tongues and had the promise of His baptism,and of such indwelling. But hey, if you want a pope, go ahead .God will allow it, as He allowed the Jews to have a king against His warnings.You want foreshadow , that is it…One must always discern whether something is literal or figurative .One must also discern if something will be fullfilled and done away with,or carried on in a type of foreshadow. There is plenty of scripture and historical data to show it was the former as far as popery. It was non-existant for at least several generations after apostles.

Jesus is God, and He does with Peter, and His Church leaders, EXACTLY what he had done with the Hebrews… through Abraham to Joseph to Moses to David to Christ and then His Church, He left someone to Lead His people. That’s biblical!

You are only partially right.The Hebrews were twelve tribes.There was no “general” in their "constitution.That there was a leader/prophet at a unique time -like moving several million people ,there will always be a leader. So who was the leader after this one time need of Moses/Joshua ? Was it back to a theocracy ? Yes, where God is their “KING”…We nave the twelve apostles as foundation, as scripture tells us .NO WHERE is Peter given credit for a bigger portion of our foundation . That he was a leader for this special time -the first sermon , the first “crossing” over , the first among equals, yes . But thereafter, like the Jews, no.

Was the Manna that God Gave the Israelites to eat figurative/ spiritual or was it Real/ physical and spiritual See Jhn 6:32 That’s Literal

Manna was as you say physical for the physical body. It was not spiritual food ,not literally .That they were blessed yes, and that has a spiritual implication., but it was not spiritual food .That is they did not eat manna and all of a sudden saw visions and prophesied and moved mountains etc . Any blessing is that of when God supplies any of our needs ,or performs any kind of miracle .Manna was physical food that sustained them for 40 years . It is symbolic of His Spirit, through and in Christ, sustaining us into and for eternity.

How do you get figuratively> It’s physical and Spiritual yes!

No.No. No. Manna was physical , not spiritual .Communion is not physical(His flesh), it is spiritual .I could see if you said communion is taking Him spiritually, but not His Adamic flesh. I do not need Him physically in my body as much as I need Him spiritually. We are His temple,spiritually . That is old testament, that God dwelled in a temple spiritually not physically , as He does in our hearts today .He does not physically dwell in me , except in remembrance.