No you won’t find the term “confirmation” in the Bible. Neither will you find a lot of other terms that we use today like having a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ. We adopt these terms to reflect the truths found in scripture. And we see this pattern of baptism/laying on of hands/receipt of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. Why shouldn’t we emulate it?
Why? Because you don't find the concept of confirmation in the Bible either. Confirmation is not in the Bible either by word or by precept.
Yes it really was that they thought Jesus was speaking literally. You’re right, Jews were not permitted to eat human flesh. That is why they left Him, because what He was saying was not only disgusting, it was unlawful. “Many of His disciples, when they heard this said, ‘This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?’” And no, Christ would not have died right then and there. He had not yet instituted the Eucharist. That was to happen at the last supper.
One of the problems people had with the early Christians was that people thought they were cannibals. Jesus could have clarified this, and so could His followers later. However, they could not deny that they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ.
You can really let your wild speculative imagination run amok with such ideas as these, but they are unsubstantiated, ridiculous, and totally unproven and against the general tenor of history.
First, the Jews would not eat human flesh.
Second, the Christians would not eat human flesh. Check the fruit of the Spirit (Gal.5:22,23)
The two verses that follow are also enlightening:
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:24-25)
Third, nowhere in history do we find Christians portrayed as "powerful" in the sense that you are describing them. The people were not afraid of them, and therefore left. That is ludicrous. The Christians (true Biblical Christians) have always been the ones that have been persecuted. What happened before Saul became Paul?
And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. (Acts 8:1)
Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. (Acts 8:4)
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; (Philippians 1:29)
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:17)
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. (Matthew 5:10-12)
--They were not the terror of the world--the cannibalistic as you describe them. They were the persecuted of the world, as Jesus describes them here. They were persecuted for righteousness sake. And eating human flesh is not righteousness. Your ideas contradict what the Bible teaches.
Here were poor and helpless Christians, many of whom were pacifists, that were persecuted by the Roman government and thrown to the lions in the Roman Colosseum. They were used as human torches in Nero's garden. And yet, you say they were the ones that were cannibalistic?? They were also persecuted by their own countrymen as Saul did, before he came to Christ. He would kill them. Stephen became the first martyr that the NT records. Remember how ugly his death was. The Jews hated the Christians. They didn't turn back because they were afraid of the Christians being cannibalistic. You have the wrong ideas.
The bread and wine were symbolic as Jesus himself says in the gospel of Luke,
do in remembrance.
As far as the teachings of Jesus being hard to follow, sometimes they were but not here. The only hard thing Jesus said in this discourse was the part about eating His flesh.
Purely symbolic.
No, of course we can’t pay any attention to people who knew and interacted with the apostles. They don’t know what they are talking about. We who are looking back over the millennia, and have never seen an original manuscript or never heard anyone speak in the dialect of 1st Century Greek or Hebrew, have a much better grasp of what John’s writings really mean.
But you don't really care if they are heretics do you?
Even the RCC has declared some of them as heretics, and you still don't care. That is simply blind naivete.
I never heard of Barnes but anyone who uses words like “Papists” has an axe to grind. However, the Zondervan Study Bible offers up the same explanation, only without the scurrilous references to Catholicism. Indeed that was what I was reading when the light went on for me concerning this passage. I immediately looked down at the footnotes to see what I might be missing. I was not impressed then and I remain unimpressed because it is an inept attempt to make scripture say something it does not say.
Perhaps that is an indication that you are closed minded as to what the Bible teaches. You are not willing to learn from others who have spent their entire lifetimes studying the Bible. Barnes wasn't a Baptist. He was Presbyterian. I am not even promoting a Baptist theologian here.
No, that was Peter. He must have got that wrong just like John got the Bread of Life discourse wrong. The word sacrament isn't in the Bible. There are no sacraments. No the word “sacrament” isn’t in the Bible. Neither is “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ, or for that matter the word “ordinance” is never used in connection with baptism or the Lord’s Supper. But we see time and again the doing of certain visible acts which result in the conferring of grace on the actor. I have recited them already and I won’t bother to do so again.
Let's take a look:
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and
keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)
--In the same chapter:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. (1 Corinthians 11:23-24)
--It is an ordinance. That is what Paul called it.
The word sacrament is never used. The meaning or concept is never found either. However, the concept of having a personal relationship with Christ is found in the NT. May I ask if you have one? If you say that either the word or concept is not in the Bible then how would you know? Just asking. But in "sacrament," neither the word or the concept is found in the Bible.
If he were single, he would have to take a vow of celibacy before being ordained. However, the celibacy has nothing to do with the validity of the order. If it did, no married man could ever be ordained and we know that a few married men get a dispensation for the priesthood. It’s not a game of semantics. Orders are sacraments given by God for our edification. Celibacy is a man made law of the Church that could be changed at any time.
But inspite of an ongoing movement for this law to be changed it never is. And it probably never will be. So your last statement is simply your opinion, which in that matter doesn't count for very much. History has proven otherwise. History has also proven how closely celibacy has been tied into the priesthood.
Yes I believe Paul was a widower. He was also an apostle. He had greater authority than a bishop or elder. So it would seem that he should have questioned his own marital status in regard to his calling.
Where do you get that idea from. He never questioned his own marital status!
The only way to read the requirements set forth for church leaders is that they cannot have multiple wives.
The verse wasn't referring to polygamy; it was referring to divorce. If a man was divorced and remarried he was ineligible for the ministry.
In addition, if they have a household, it must be governed in an orderly fashion. Although the married state is preferable to celibacy for clergy, you will search the scriptures in vain for a prohibition of celibacy.
As you just said, marriage is preferable. Why then, would celibacy be
mandated by the RCC? The Bible calls that a doctrine of demons.
It could be a public event or it could be administered in a home or a hospital room. And you are supplying a lot of gloss to what is said in James 5. You are critical of others when they infer certain events although the Bible is silent but you’re doing the same thing here. In James 5 the only thing the sick man does is call for the elders. The elders come and do everything—annoint and pray. The sick man is made well and his sins are forgiven. Scripture says nothing about the sick man praying. He probably does but we have to infer that from silence. We certainly can’t go over to 1 John and say these two passages have to be read together.
It doesn't matter. The verse says "his sins shall be forgiven him. It does not say that the person praying him will forgive his sins. Only God forgives sins. And that is Biblical truth. Any person on earth who claims that he has the power to forgive sins commits the sin of blasphemy, for only God has that power.
