SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[Gamera]

As I have stated,the whole premise of the Roman Catholic Church rests on the belief that Peter was the first Pope,which by the way is not true,so let me ask this.You all say that the Pope can forgive sins,again not true,but anyway my question is why can’t they heal the sick?..
Was it the second Pope third fourth or what,point being if he can forgive sins he should be able to heal the sick

Confession is a sacrament. Jesus instituted sacramental confession (John 20:21-23) which means he intended it to pass to the sucessors of the Apostles.

Miraculous healings aren’t sacraments. They are not necessary to salvation. They abounded during the Apostolic age as signs that God was revealing Himself to the world, but God’s general revelation to humanity ended with the death of the last Apostle.

You seem to have missed the entire point of the Biblical incident you quote. Jesus’ whole point is that a miraculous healing is LESS of a miracle than the forgiveness of sins. Since the pope, bishops and priests work the amazing miracle of granting God’s forgiveness for sins, I don’t care whether they work lesser miracles of healing the sick.

BTW, we have another sacrament called Anointing of the sick, which the Bible says results in both physical healing and the forgiveness of sins (James 5:15). Does your church practice anointing of the sick as instructed in James 5:15? If not, why not?

 

[juliamajor]

Who tell is Justin Martyr,and what makes him right and my sources wrong?

So lets do a different source,unbiased I might add

The term transubstantiation was adopted into the phraseology of the church in 1215, when it was employed by the Fourth Lateran Council. The dogma was reconfirmed (1551) by the Council of Trent, as follows: “If any one shall say that, in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine alone remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema” (Session 13, Canon 2)

history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=224416

Who is Justin Martyr?your ignorance is showing ! And yes I’d take any word of Justin Martyr then any of the ‘canned’ and copy and pasted drek you parade out as scholarship. Please come up an original thought of your own ! it would be refreshing!. instead of the regurgitated ,overdone, melodramatic neo- ‘black legend’ that you need to keep your hatred of anything that doesn’t fit you"christian’ view. Claptrap,folderol, and pseudo-intellectual poppycock are the words that come to my mind as I read your posts.Jack Chick must be proud! You are a true product of his kind of thinking?!

 

[placido]

The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice, and attendance made obligatory in the 11th Century after Christ. The gospel teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11; Heb. 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).

The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III in the year 1215 A.D. By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The gospel condemns such absurdities, for the Holy Communion is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ (Luke 22:19, 20; John 6:35; 1 Cor. 11:26).

Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council, in the year 1215 A.D. The gospel commands us to confess our sins direct [sic] to God (Psalms 51; Isa. 1:18; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1 John 1:8, 9).

The Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Toledo in 1229 A.D. Jesus and the apostles commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all (John 5:39; 1 Tim. 3:15-17).

The doctrine of purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by the Council of Florence in 1439 A.D. There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins (1 John 1:7-9; 2:1, 2; John 5:24; Rom. 8:10; Rev. 1:5; Eph. 1:7).

What will be the next invention of the Roman Church? Catholics say their church never changes, yet it has done nothing but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and it has practiced rites and ceremonies taken wholly from paganism. At least 95% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.

biblestudysite.com/qtarc3.htm#4

Call it what you will,I call it what it is

What amazes me is the ommission of two crucial “Roman Church inventions” from the “BOETTNER LIST”, namely the “invention” of the Trinity and the “invention” of the Canon of Scriptures. Is that an oversight or blatant dishonesty?

 

[Stephen_C]

Keep n2thelight in your prayers. Just maybe a seed has been planted…

 

[mercygate]

Keep n2thelight in your prayers. Just maybe a seed has been planted…

Well, he’s left the building . . . .

 

[po18guy]

Yeah, and you just got yourself reported to the Mods again for violating the rules you agreed to when you came on board here at CAF.
This is just another effort on your part to use CAF as a pulpit for your anti-Catholic propaganda.

Note to all: Don’t bother refuting this. He’s running “The Boettner List” and I have that bad joke’s refutation on my blog.
The “Boettner List”: Fact or Fiction?

Very brotherly behavior, no? All we can do is pray for them. The demon has lead so many astray.

 

[justasking4]

Gamera;4186222]Confession is a sacrament. Jesus instituted sacramental confession (John 20:21-23) which means he intended it to pass to the sucessors of the Apostles.

Where do we see any priest in the NT hearing confession as we see in the Catholic church?

Miraculous healings aren’t sacraments. They are not necessary to salvation. They abounded during the Apostolic age as signs that God was revealing Himself to the world, but God’s general revelation to humanity ended with the death of the last Apostle.

You seem to have missed the entire point of the Biblical incident you quote. Jesus’ whole point is that a miraculous healing is LESS of a miracle than the forgiveness of sins. Since the pope, bishops and priests work the amazing miracle of granting God’s forgiveness for sins, I don’t care whether they work lesser miracles of healing the sick.

BTW, we have another sacrament called Anointing of the sick, which the Bible says results in both physical healing and the forgiveness of sins (James 5:15). Does your church practice anointing of the sick as instructed in James 5:15? If not, why not?

 

[po18guy]

Where do we see any priest in the NT hearing confession as we see in the Catholic church?

One question: Are you a spambot? I have seen you ask this 2,174,375,786,953,000 times before, each with answers. OK, maybe a few times less.

 

[BerenCamlost]

The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice

No. False.

The gospel teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11; Heb. 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).

Catholics teach that the sacrifice was made once for all. Christ is not re-sacrificed at Mass, it is not repeated. So, again you are mistaken.

The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III in the year 1215 A.D.

So what? That has nothing to do with anything. He used a term to name something that they already believed.

then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The gospel condemns such absurdities

No. Again, false. I wonder if you are insincere or just ignorant? This is exactly one of the misinterpretations that made it necessary to define transubstantiation. Even if you can’t believe what Catholics believe yourself you should at least state what Catholics believe correctly. You are right, it was absurd and condemnable for Jesus to say, “Take, eat: this is my body.” or “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you” and so on and so forth.

Call it what you will,I call it what it is

No you call is what it’s not.

 

[mercygate]

Where do we see any priest in the NT hearing confession as we see in the Catholic church?

We know that confession was happening in the early second century. Not just alone with a priest, however, but in front of the entire congregation. The present discipline of the sacrament is a merciful retreat from the practice of the early Church.

If you wear your “Catholic/Orthodox” glasses, you can see personal repentance, confession and reconciliation via a minister of the Church in the restoration of the incestuous man in 2 Corinthians.

In fact the use of confessional booths was a product of the Tridentine Reform – the use of a screen was added to protect people from their own shame since it was felt that face-to-face confession was a deterrent that kept people away from this marvellous Sacrament.

 

[po18guy]

We know that confession was happening in the early second century. Not just alone with a priest, however, but in front of the entire congregation. The present discipline of the sacrament is a merciful retreat from the practice of the early Church.

If you wear your “Catholic/Orthodox” glasses, you can see personal repentance, confession and reconciliation via a minister of the Church in the restoration of the incestuous man in 2 Corinthians.

In fact the use of confessional booths was a product of the Tridentine Reform – the use of a screen was added to protect people from their own shame since it was felt that face-to-face confession was a deterrent that kept people away from this marvellous Sacrament.

Christ, in each forgiveness of sin, accomplished healing, and in each healing He accomplished the forgiveness of sin. The two are inseparable. He set the pattern for all time. He granted not only physical healing, but spiritual, and those who received healing often followed Him, praising God’s name.

He spoke the words of forgiveness in to each sinner, ensuring that they knew the moment of Grace. In Matthew 9:2 and Mark 2:5, He spoke the words of forgiveness that were inseparable from the physical healing. And, in like manner, the priest speaks the words of absolution to us, so that we might also know the moment of Grace.

Public confession was established in the OT. In Acts 19:18, they confessed publicly. In James 5:16, we are admonished to confess to one another. This also points to the fallacy of sola scriptura, since the tradition of confession was well known, and so the mechanics of it were not spoken of in scripture. They were tradition. However, if you’ve thrown tradition out, you go only by the mention of the word confession. Oh, how much has been lost!

Christ’s peace.

 

[NotWorthy]

Where do we see any priest in the NT hearing confession as we see in the Catholic church?

We see confessions in the Old Testament:
Leviticus 5 tells us:

5 then whoever is guilty in any of these cases shall confess the sin he has incurred, 6 and as his sin offering for the sin he has committed he shall bring to the LORD a female animal from the flock, a ewe lamb or a she-goat. The priest shall then make atonement for his sin. 7 "If, however, he cannot afford an animal of the flock, he shall bring to the LORD as the sin offering for his sin two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a holocaust. 8 He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer the one for the sin offering first. Snapping its head loose at the neck, yet without breaking it off completely,

It would seem that since the Old Testament is but a shadow of the New, then this would seem to be as well defined a shadow as anything else I’ve seen pre-figured in the Old Testament.Note: the Old Testament passage not only shows confession to a priest, but it also clearly shows forgiveness, as well.

So, how do you call the Sacrament of Confession un-Scriptural.

BTW - to all… Notworthy is Back in the House!!!

Hurricane Ike could not keep me down for long!

 

[po18guy]

We see confessions in the Old Testament:
Leviticus 5 tells us:
It would seem that since the Old Testament is but a shadow of the New, then this would seem to be as well defined a shadow as anything else I’ve seen pre-figured in the Old Testament.Note: the Old Testament passage not only shows confession to a priest, but it also clearly shows forgiveness, as well.

So, how do you call the Sacrament of Confession un-Scriptural.

BTW - to all… Notworthy is Back in the House!!!

Hurricane Ike could not keep me down for long!

John 20:23 (King James Version) “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

I believe that even JA4’s bible contains this verse. It’s all in the proper reading.

 

[justasking4]

We see confessions in the Old Testament:
Leviticus 5 tells us:
It would seem that since the Old Testament is but a shadow of the New, then this would seem to be as well defined a shadow as anything else I’ve seen pre-figured in the Old Testament.Note: the Old Testament passage not only shows confession to a priest, but it also clearly shows forgiveness, as well.

So, how do you call the Sacrament of Confession un-Scriptural.

BTW - to all… Notworthy is Back in the House!!!

Hurricane Ike could not keep me down for long!

Were glad you’re back and didn’t get blown away—View attachment 4110

 

[justasking4]

po18guy;4193831]**
Originally Posted by NotWorthy
We see confessions in the Old Testament:
Leviticus 5 tells us:
It would seem that since the Old Testament is but a shadow of the New, then this would seem to be as well defined a shadow as anything else I’ve seen pre-figured in the Old Testament.Note: the Old Testament passage not only shows confession to a priest, but it also clearly shows forgiveness, as well.

So, how do you call the Sacrament of Confession un-Scriptural.

BTW - to all… Notworthy is Back in the House!!!

Hurricane Ike could not keep me down for long!

po18guy

John 20:23 (King James Version)** “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

I believe that even JA4’s bible contains this verse. It’s all in the proper reading.

True its in my Bible. In regards to confession to a priest we still don’t see it done in the NT.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

We see confessions in the Old Testament:
Leviticus 5 tells us:
It would seem that since the Old Testament is but a shadow of the New, then this would seem to be as well defined a shadow as anything else I’ve seen pre-figured in the Old Testament.Note: the Old Testament passage not only shows confession to a priest, but it also clearly shows forgiveness, as well.

So, how do you call the Sacrament of Confession un-Scriptural.

BTW - to all… Notworthy is Back in the House!!!

Hurricane Ike could not keep me down for long!

I really am glad you are back Notworthy, and that you didn’t suffer overlong from Hurricane Ike. Being from the New Orleans area, I know the hardship of evacuation.

 

[po18guy]

True its in my Bible. In regards to confession to a priest we still don’t see it done in the NT.

Where does Christ say that only the Twelve have power over sin? He does not. What He does say is “whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven” (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18). They bound it. Did Christ give them the power? Yes. Did they bind that power to their successors? Yes. Since it’s not in your Sacred Cliff’s Notes (i.e. bible), you don’t understand it. This is because Tradition + Bible = Christianity. The left and right hands of faith. Since we have scripture, Tradition only = Incomplete teaching. Since we have tradition, Bible only = Incomplete teaching. Will you risk knowledge, and love, of Christ to remain non-Catholic?

The only reason you and I have the bible is because the Apostles’ successors held scripture bound, just as they did the power over sin. If they did not have the handed on authority to test scripture, the bible is worthless.

Much was loosed, but what was held bound? Consider:

Acts 5:1-11 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.” Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

This was sin being held bound - thus, power over sin. If you have not heard Christ’s words of absolution, the moment of Grace that He instituted, are not your sins still with you? Christ did not teach, nor does the bible teach to confess to God. Christ is our intercessor, and the priest His representative, with the “bound” power over sin.

This is all basic, simple, and easily understood for those who have both scripture as well as Paul’s traditions.

Christ’s peace.

 

[guanophore]

John 20:23 (King James Version) “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

I believe that even JA4’s bible contains this verse. It’s all in the proper reading.

This is a good example of the topic. Jesus taught that He had Authority on earth to forgive sins, and He passed this authority on to his Apostles who passed it to their successors.

Those who have rejected the Apostolic faith, however, twist this verse to mean that Jesus empowered them to preach the gospel, in which was found forgiveness of sins.

Clearly the truth of what Christ taught is not obvious in what has been written, since they cannot see it.!

 

[NotWorthy]

Were glad you’re back and didn’t get blown away—View attachment 4110

Thanks a lot! And just to clarify, there’s a rumor going around my office that the streaker in Beaumont during The Weather Channel’s coverage of Hurricane Ike looks a lot like me!!! I wish to deny any link to said streaker!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

True its in my Bible. In regards to confession to a priest we still don’t see it done in the NT.

But you don’t deny that it was done in the Old Testament?

Let me ask you, how is a person to know which sins to forgive and which to retain? I don’t see Jesus giving the Apostles the authority of ESP.