per Hebrews/Jesus Died ONCE AND FOR ALL/Why does RCC resacrifice him each Mass?

[The Biblicist]

I do and I show you entire context but you rather eisegese the passage than deal with the proper meanings properly exegeting the passage.

Nice words but where's the beef? If you want to deal with the whole context in an exgetical fashion I am game!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is not Non sequitor. I didn't use "American." I said I haven't seen anyone, and I mean that.

anyone includes people of nationalities does it not. It still doesn't follow that if you haven't seen something it isn't true.

I have never seen, not heard of any individual in all the earth in all ages since the beginning of mankind who has had an infant who has the ability to understand the gospel, believe, and repent.

Have you not read in scripture that circumcision which is a foreshadowing of the NT is a process by which one enters into a covenant relationship with God? It is clear that is true in the OT. Now look a what Paul says in Col.

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Paul equates the covenant circumcision of admission into the Jewish nation with Baptism or the covenant admission into the Kingdom of God. It is clear by this verse. A baptism btw as Peter says.

and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also

Note that Peter also said

The promise is for you and your children

And Peter practiced what he preached

then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

Which includes children.

Those were your conditions. The RCC believes in infant baptism--baptismal regeneration.

As you can see its based on scripture.

More than 90% of its members enter the Catholic Church that way.

So?

The only rational conclusion is that they all must be lost. Infants cannot believe and repent. And yet they are baptized. These are your words

This is where you go astray. You believe that you are God and everything depends on what you believe. When in reality you ignore the scriptures when the OT and the NT shows that we aren't just individuals we are made up of a community. And the community has faith and the responsibility to bring in its young (jewish children were circumzised at 8 days) so that they can raise the youth in the faith. As we can see from the foreshadowing in the OT

hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.

and how Jesus responds in the NT

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

Note little children believing in Jesus How? because the community passed on their faith from the childs infancy. Most Baptist churches don't baptist 3-6 year old children. But its clear Jesus expects the community to pass on their faith. And so the infant is incapable of doing anything on its own the community must care for it, feed it, give it drink, clothe it, and pass on its faith.

But I have never seen an infant do that. So all must be lost. That is the only conclusion I can come to. They are your words.

Therefore you are wrong.

Semantics. All sin is willful

Let me be specific. Willful with serious matter is not semantics. Some sin are negligent. Not all sin is purposeful willful with serious matter rebellion against God! Ie Adultry and Fornication, Homosexuality etc....

All Catholics (all mankind) are sinners

Yes and we choose to repent. Did you repent or do you still live in sin?

All Catholics have apostatized from the faith.

Wrong! By the people of this board you guys believe God created sin so he can glorify himself (which makes God evil) According to people on this board you believe its impossible to sin as a believer. By people on this board Jesus doesn't even have Jewish blood!!!! I'm wondering why anyone on this board still believes in the Trinity which was defined and Catagorized as orthodox by the Catholic Church.

By your own words you have not only condemned yourself but your own religion. It is apostate and no longer Christian. Glad to see you have finally come to your senses.

By my own words I have shown scriptural support for Catholic soteriology.
I am not ashamed of my words lets look at them again

Again you show your ignorance. I can't believe you were ever catholic. The priest doesn't forgive your sins. JESUS FORGIVES YOUR SINS. The preist acting on behalf of the Church gives voice to what Jesus has already done

.

1. If Jesus forgives my sins (according to the RCC), then their is no need to go to Confession. I can go straight to Christ, not to a priest.

Ah it seems once again you ignore what James says

Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed

It is clear this apostle thought you needed the community of believers to confess to not just God. And note there is healing with this type of confession so agains scriptures shows you to be wrong.

2

. The priest cannot act on behalf of any church to voice what Jesus has done. Jesus himself is my Great High Priest to whom I can go directly.

again you ignore James. I bet you wish you could take that book out of the NT!!!! But what does he say?

Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.

What are the Presbyters (priest) doing? Acting in the Name of the Lord on behalf of the body of believers. You also ignore Jesus' own words to his Apostles

And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

thats the problem with smorgishboard christianity you take things out of context. Yes there is one mediator. But we also mediate for each other by praying for each other and forgiving each other. You don't stop those practices do you? We are inheritors of the Kingdom and are required to act as such.

[

B]Hebrews 4:14

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

So you ignore how Jesus taught us to pray

forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us

Do you expect we are not to forgive because the is one highpriest? Are we not a nation of Priest? How can we forgive sins? Because Jesus told us to.


[

B]Hebrews 4:16 [/B]Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

No where in that verse does it say only Jesus will forgive your sins. It says Jesus will help us in our time of need. You inproperly eisegesis that passage.

Good deeds do follow salvation.

Then we are in agreement there.

I believe that whole-heartedly. But according to your theology salvation takes place, first at infancy, and second at baptism

Again you are wrong

BTW, you can't demonstrate a single "sacrament" in the Bible.

I can prove all 7 but you just want one?

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

and again

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Jesus is very clear.

 

[jaigner]

Out of step with an Apostate Christianity, NOT the Bible and the real Gospel that saves!

Let me get this straight. You can barely put a rational sentence together, but you want me to take your opinion of patristic sources?

 

[jaigner]

That is a stupid non siquitur DHK. I haven't seen a Canadian do it either. Are all Canadians lost? You obvioulsy don't understand Covenant theology or what Peter means when he says this promise is for you and your Children. Nor do you understand the nature of the Kingdom of God.

No joke. This guy thinks he's the ultimate authority on the Catholic Church, yet nobody even takes him seriously. It's hilarious.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Nice words but where's the beef? If you want to deal with the whole context in an exgetical fashion I am game!

For instance you always quote romans to support your belief that all you need is some nebulous belief in Jesus without action. but you forget Paul already laid the ground rules for christians in Chapter 2 requiring we act. Therefore you've taken Paul out of context.

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

and again

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Note the word righteous in this passage is dikaioō which word we use for Justified. Paul first establishes this goes on to say that the Levitical law is not required for salvation such as circumcision. But that doesn't do away with God's moral law or the decalogue.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No joke. This guy thinks he's the ultimate authority on the Catholic Church, yet nobody even takes him seriously. It's hilarious.

I'm not the ultimate authority on the Catholic Church but compared to you I am.

 

[Walter]

No joke. This guy thinks he's the ultimate authority on the Catholic Church, yet nobody even takes him seriously. It's hilarious.

I take him seriously and he certainly know more about Catholicism than you do!

 

[The Biblicist]

For instance you always quote romans to support your belief that all you need is some nebulous belief in Jesus without action. but you forget Paul already laid the ground rules for christians in Chapter 2 requiring we act. Therefore you've taken Paul out of context. and again
Note the word righteous in this passage is dikaioō which word we use for Justified. Paul first establishes this goes on to say that the Levitical law is not required for salvation such as circumcision. But that doesn't do away with God's moral law or the decalogue.

Whoooa! I thought you were talking about the overall context of John 6? So you want to rule out John 6 and Romans 4?????

Romans 2 has absolutely no contextual application to Christians at all. The subjects preceding and following are self-righteous hypocrits who believe they will be justified UNDER THE LAW by their OWN works. You talk about jerking verses out of context - you take the cake here! No flesh will be justified under the law (Rom. 3:19-20).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Whoooa! I thought you were talking about the overall context of John 6? So you want to rule out John 6 and Romans 4?????

Romans 2 has absolutely no contextual application to Christians at all. The subjects preceding and following are self-righteous hypocrits who believe they will be justified UNDER THE LAW by their OWN works. You talk about jerking verses out of context - you take the cake here! No flesh will be justified under the law (Rom. 3:19-20).

The ceremonial levitical law that is which was the problem of the Judiazers. Know the audience. Paul doesn't contradict himself but in your view he would have to.

John 6 is clear. But I used Romans because Romans is your staple. John 6 is about the Eucharist. It starts out as a discussion about eating, then faith, ending with the eucharist. Which requires both faith and eating.

 

[The Biblicist]

The ceremonial levitical law that is which was the problem of the Judiazers. Know the audience. Paul doesn't contradict himself but in your view he would have to.

John 6 is clear. But I used Romans because Romans is your staple. John 6 is about the Eucharist. It starts out as a discussion about eating, then faith, ending with the eucharist. Which requires both faith and eating.

Come on! You demanded exegetical examination so lets do it with John 6!

 

[jaigner]

I'm not the ultimate authority on the Catholic Church but compared to you I am.

I was talking about DHK.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, either.

 

[jaigner]

I take him seriously and he certainly know more about Catholicism than you do!

How do you know Mr. Smarty Pants.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I was talking about DHK.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, either.

Sorry I misunderstood. You quoted me I thought you were directing your comments to me. Please forgive my jumping to conclusions.

 

[The Biblicist]

The ceremonial levitical law that is which was the problem of the Judiazers.

Romans 3:19-20 is not talking about the "ceremonial levitical law" but the law violated by both Jews and Gentiles - Rom. 3:9 - the law that condemns and characterizes the fallen nature - Rom. 3:10-18- the law that "all the world" has violated and that "no flesh" will be justified by but that shuts "every mouth" both Gentile and Jews.

 

[jaigner]

Sorry I misunderstood. You quoted me I thought you were directing your comments to me. Please forgive my jumping to conclusions.

We're cool.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Come on! You demanded exegetical examination so lets do it with John 6!

lets do it. John 6

Note what I said about the outline its starts with food then faith then Eucharist which incorporates both.

John 6:1

5 When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” 6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

This is the starting point for John 6. A crowd gathers around to hear Jesus teach. However, food becomes a question. Previous to this chapter in John Chapter 2 that Jesus turned water into wine showing that he can and does turn one thing into another

Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.

8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”

They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine

in John Chapter 6's begining we see that Jesus can also multiply things

8 Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, spoke up, 9 “Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?”

10 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” There was plenty of grass in that place, and they sat down (about five thousand men were there). 11 Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.

12 When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” 13 So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.

Now having seen this People wanted to Track Jesus down because he fed them and they thought wow an easy way to get food!

22 The next day the crowd that had stayed on the opposite shore of the lake realized that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. 23 Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.

However, Jesus wanted them to see which things really matters.

27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

The people were looking for material food which nurish us in this world rather than seen a need for for their spiritual nurishment which last forever in the kingdom. See John 4:1-26. Note only the son of Man can give them this spiritual food. Note He is drawing on Daniel's prophesy and the imagry for the new Kingdom rather than the old Jewish kingdom.

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed...

also note the latter part of that verse

For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval

which is firm eternal authority. Note when a seal is impressed in wax the wax recieves the complete form of the seal therefore Jesus recieves the entire form of the father. Now either missing the point or trying to be clever they reply to him (still wanting easy food) remember the context is the discussion of food. They consider Jesus to be a Holy Man and thus God gives him the ability to multiply food. So they say, not changing the subject

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

refering back to what Jesus just previously said

Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures

Jesus responds that their task is to believe in Jesus (which means doing what he says)

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Now being really clever they want to know why they should trust Jesus because under Moses they recieved real food

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”

Jesus makes it clear Moses didn't give them this food but God did

32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.

Jesus then goes on to explain in the present tense what this heavenly bread is

For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Still looking for easy food they say

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

Not understanding that the bread as explianed by Jesus is himself which is our spiritual food. As he explained

For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world

They want a lifetime supply of material food. Jesus then identifies himself with the bread he is speaking about. Which gives eternal life. And the only way to approach him is by faith

Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe...For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Seeing clearly that Jesus Identifies himself with manna and being from God they complain

At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

Jesus re-affirms his identification with manna and that he is even greater than that

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.

further Jesus Identifies himself with the bread that comes down from heaven and explains even further

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

indicating that it is his flesh also reference back to vs. 27. The Jews were offended because that meant

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Does Jesus tell them they are wrong?

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Note in vs 54 Jesus says more than eat but says Trogo or gnaw, chew his flesh. Note

If the idea of eating someones flesh is repugnant, what about drinking their blood? To the
Jewish audience this would be even more repulsive. -www.scborromeo.org

Therefore his many disciples then said

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Jesus doesn't say they are mistaken but says

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

He insist on his position in the Trinity and notes that people wanted just the physical food for their bodies but that accounts for nothing they need the spiritual food of his body that he provides because it is the spiritual side that provides for eternal life. Note it was at this point Judas stopped believing.

For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

and thus

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him

and his 12 consider leaving too

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go?

But they had faith in him to continue. Note jesus didn't say all these people misunderstood me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Romans 3:19-20 is not talking about the "ceremonial levitical law" but the law violated by both Jews and Gentiles - Rom. 3:9 - the law that condemns and characterizes the fallen nature - Rom. 3:10-18- the law that "all the world" has violated and that "no flesh" will be justified by but that shuts "every mouth" both Gentile and Jews.

Then you will have to argue away Romans Chapter 2.

 

[DHK]

anyone includes people of nationalities does it not. It still doesn't follow that if you haven't seen something it isn't true.

I do know it is true because it doesn't happen. Infants are not born with a mind that is capable of understanding the gospel. That is a biological fact. That I know to be true without seeing. You also know it to be true.

Have you not read in scripture that circumcision which is a foreshadowing of the NT is a process by which one enters into a covenant relationship with God? It is clear that is true in the OT. Now look a what Paul says in Col. Paul equates the covenant circumcision of admission into the Jewish nation with Baptism or the covenant admission into the Kingdom of God. It is clear by this verse. A baptism btw as Peter says.

Nothing like taking Scripture out of context to try and prove a point. The verse doesn't teach baptism saves. Look at in context. The water destroyed. It destroyed all but Noah and his family that were in the flood. Those that were baptized in the flood were destroyed. You have the wrong interpretation. Furthermore, baptism is not a picture of circumcision and never was. All of those shadows were just that--shadows. We have the real thing--Christ, and don't need the shadows. If you want shadows become a Jew and keep the Jewish laws and worship at the Temple (which is no longer).

Note that Peter also said And Peter practiced what he preached Which includes children.

You are deluded. Peter had three children: Peter Jr, Paul and Mary. They sang pop songs and became well known. How do I know this? The same way you know that they had infants. You read into the Scripture things that are not there. You argue from silence. There is not a single instance in the Bible of an infant being baptized.

As you can see its based on scripture.

You haven't demonstrated that.

So?

So, since infants cannot believe the gospel, and infants enter the RCC through infant baptism the RCC is full of unsaved wretches. As John Newton put it: "that saved a 'wretch' like me." But it was Christ that saved him, not baptism.

This is where you go astray. You believe that you are God and everything depends on what you believe. When in reality you ignore the scriptures when the OT and the NT shows that we aren't just individuals we are made up of a community. And the community has faith and the responsibility to bring in its young (jewish children were circumzised at 8 days) so that they can raise the youth in the faith. As we can see from the foreshadowing in the OT

1. I believe I have God's Scriptures, and everything I believe is based on those Scriptures. I am not therefore God, but the messenger of God and His revelation which He has given me.
2. I am not the one ignoring the Scriptures.
3. We are not Jews. If what you say is true, what tribe do you belong to?
4. Do you circumcise your children on the 8th day?
5. The verse says that they were taught in their youth not in their infancy, thus your argument is defeated.

and how Jesus responds in the NT Note little children believing in Jesus How? because the community passed on their faith from the childs infancy. Most Baptist churches don't baptist 3-6 year old children. But its clear Jesus expects the community to pass on their faith.

The "little children" were not infants. They could run and come on their own. It doesn't say the community passed on their faith. You are reading that into the Scripture, but it is not there. Most churches; not all, perhaps not even most.
Who said Jesus expects the community to pass on their faith?
The community's faith nowadays is humanism and secularism. You want that passed on??

And so the infant is incapable of doing anything on its own the community must care for it, feed it, give it drink, clothe it, and pass on its faith.

Therefore you are wrong.

I am not wrong. Infants do not have the capacity to be saved.
Infants are not saved according to your philosophy. Your philosophy does not save. Jesus does.

Let me be specific. Willful with serious matter is not semantics. Some sin are negligent. Not all sin is purposeful willful with serious matter rebellion against God! Ie Adultry and Fornication, Homosexuality etc....

Yes, the RCC teaches anti-Biblical doctrine of venial and mortal sins.
But all sin is willful sin. Sin is a transgression of God's law:

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

One sin is as bad as another:
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

If you tell a little white lie you are just as guilty as that one who murders and commits adultery. You have broken God's law. Sin is a transgression of God's law. It doesn't matter in God's sight. Sin is sin. And all sin is willful sin. You do it because you want to do it. It is purposeful.

Yes and we choose to repent. Did you repent or do you still live in sin?

Have you repented of lying and now you have never told a lie in your life again?

Wrong! By the people of this board you guys believe God created sin so he can glorify himself (which makes God evil) According to people on this board you believe its impossible to sin as a believer. By people on this board Jesus doesn't even have Jewish blood!!!! I'm wondering why anyone on this board still believes in the Trinity which was defined and Catagorized as orthodox by the Catholic Church.

One cannot believe in the doctrine of the Catholic Church and believe in the gospel of the Bible at the same time. They do not mesh. They are at antipodes, directly contrary to one another. One is a message of works. The other the gospel of salvation by grace through faith. That is a message that the Catholics deny: justification by faith alone. If you don't believe that you cannot be saved.
I don't speak for people on this board who hold to unorthodox doctrine. I don't speak for other people's salvation. I uphold the truths of the Bible, and tell you what is true.

 

[DHK]

By my own words I have shown scriptural support for Catholic soteriology.
I am not ashamed of my words lets look at them again.

No, your words condemn you. You believe in a works-salvation which cannot save.
1. The priest cannot act on behalf of any church. Only Christ can forgive sins. Christ is our only Mediator.
2. What confusion you have. We can pray FOR each other; never TO each other. That is idolatry. That is what makes your church pagan.

Ah it seems once again you ignore what James says It is clear this apostle thought you needed the community of believers to confess to not just God. And note there is healing with this type of confession so agains scriptures shows you to be wrong.

No, as I have just explained, it doesn't.

2 again you ignore James. I bet you wish you could take that book out of the NT!!!! But what does he say? What are the Presbyters (priest) doing? Acting in the Name of the Lord on behalf of the body of believers. You also ignore Jesus' own words to his Apostles

First, it specifically says they are pastors.
Secondly, it says they are praying FOR the sick.
Third, there is no guarantee that the sick would be healed. It was according to the will of God.

Fourth, as already explained, the words in John 20:21 were in the context of church discipline and nothing more. Look at my previous post.

thats the problem with smorgishboard christianity you take things out of context. Yes there is one mediator. But we also mediate for each other by praying for each other and forgiving each other. You don't stop those practices do you? We are inheritors of the Kingdom and are required to act as such.

Who has taken Scripture out of context? An objective look at the Scripture you have referred to will tell the truth about that. The verse that you are referring to above is this one:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
--There is only one mediator, and it is not a priest. The verse is not taken out of its context. You can study the context for yourself if you wish. You can pray for another, but you cannot mediate for that person. You cannot take that person's sins and forgive them on God's behalf. You are not the mediator that comes between God and that person, like the priest pretends to be when he pretends that he can forgive his sins. Only God can forgive sins.

So you ignore how Jesus taught us to pray Do you expect we are not to forgive because the is one highpriest? Are we not a nation of Priest? How can we forgive sins? Because Jesus told us to.

No, but the Lord's Prayer is not the only Scripture in the Bible. Hebrews 4:14ff tells us that we, as believers and priests before God can come straight before the throne of God and present out petitions before our Great High Priest. We have no need of an earthly priest. We can go straight to Christ himself. This aspect the Catholics do not understand.

No where in that verse does it say only Jesus will forgive your sins. It says Jesus will help us in our time of need. You inproperly eisegesis that passage.

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

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

Then we are in agreement there.
Again you are wrong

I can prove all 7 but you just want one?
and again Jesus is very clear.

We can forgive one another of the wrongs they do against us.
We cannot forgive them for the wrongs they do against God.
The RCC claims that they can. They are wrong.

Sacraments are not found in the Bible. Notice I said "sacraments." There are two ordinances. The other commands are not sacraments. Marriage, for example is not a sacrament. Define sacrament. There is no such thing as a sacrament, according to the Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sacraments are not found in the Bible. Notice I said "sacraments." There are two ordinances. The other commands are not sacraments. Marriage, for example is not a sacrament. Define sacrament. There is no such thing as a sacrament, according to the Bible.

Most of your post is a non sequitur. I've explained the scriptures are clear the verses I used are clear James and Hebrews disagree with your attempt to wipe away those verses such as your attempt to say it only means pastor the word is presbetyr in Greek where we get our term for preist in english as in there are 3 types of elders in NT writings Episcopos (bishop) Presbyter (priest) and deacon (deacon). The term in James is Presbyters and its clear they are accepting confessions of those who want to be healed. You still haven't explained away Jesus saying "those sins you forgive are forgiven" he doesn't make a caveat saying only against you. BTW your quote of John doesn't say only jesus forgives sins. Jesus told his disciples they can forgive sins or retain them. You still need to explain that. James still says to confess your sins.

The part of your post I quoted I found I should respond to because you think you have a point. Jesus instituted the sacraments he doesn't call them sacraments but he commanded that we do them such as baptize etc... He doesn't call them ordenences either. To say there is no such thing as a sacrament is to say there is no such thing as an ordenance. or to say there is no such thing as the Trinity. You've deluded yourself in thinking Jesus doesn't want us to meet him in those things he commanded us to do such as baptism, communion, marriage, repentance, etc...