Welcome to Gaia! ::

You pretty much answered my questions, thank you biggrin heart

Thank you, Amiruni. I probably should have told you, I'm not a Protestant, nor am I a Catholic, though you already know that. Instead, I am without denomination. I am not, in any way, bound to or associated with a religious denomination. But, let's do this.

Matthew 16:18, 19

This here has been identified as numbered below:

1. Jesus Christ; His work of salvation by dying on the cross.
   
2. Peter is the first great leader in the church in Jerusalem.
   
3. The confession of faith that Peter gave and that all succeeding true believers would give. The "rock" most likely refers to Peter as the leader of the church for his function, not his character.
   
4. Peter reminds us Christians that we are the church built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, whereas Jesus is the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-6).
   
5. Some say the keys represent authority to carry out church discipline, administration, et cetera (Matthew 18:15-1 cool ; other say that they are keys to give authority to announce forgiveness of sins (John 20:23); and other say the keys may be the opportunity to bring people to the kingdom of God by preaching the message (Acts 15:7-9).
   

I think the owner of the site just wants to hide other passages.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

1. The owner of the site lacks information of the "extra-biblical" information. Instead, he goes to say that all of what he is saying can be found in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church." If so, I would wonder why he lacked the information.
   
2. While John 21:25 says, "Jesus did many other things as well," and so forth, one would wonder where the Catholic church got the rest of what Jesus said.
   
3. To counter "Isn't Paul adding something else to follow in addition to the Bible," I quote Proverbs 30:5, 6, which says, "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."
   
4. Tradition is not bad, as long as nothing is added to it, that is, if it is being passed down.
   
5. Paul knew that the Thessalonians would come in contact with persecution, false teachings, worldliness, and so on, so that the Christians in Thessalonica may waver, and so this is why Paul warned the Thessalonians. Again, tradition is not bad, as long as nothing is added to it.

1 Peter 3:21

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

John 20:22-23

Christ gave His disciples their Spirit-guided mission, which was to preach the Gospel about Jesus, so that people's sins might be forgiven. The disciples did not have the power to forgive sins, for even the Pharisees knew, when they asked, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7)

John 6:53-58, 66-67

The problem here is, is that we really cannot eat Christ's flesh, nor drink His blood, since His body is not here on earth. Nor is there any evidence that the bread we eat or wine we drink, actually becomes flesh and blood. In fact, if we are to take this literally, as the owner of the site so eagerly presumes, then we are being taught cannibalism. The funny thing is, is that according to Strong's, for the word phago, it can also be used metaphorically:

1) to eat
2) to eat (consume) a thing
a) to take food, eat a meal
b) metaph. to devour, consume

While it is true that the religious leaders were taking it literally, they would know that the idea of drinking blood, let alone human blood, was against the Levitical law (Leviticus 17:10, 11). It's kind of like when Jesus told His disciples to watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees. He wasn't speaking literally, though His disciples thought that He was talking about the bread that they took with them. If one is to take such things literally, I would wonder how much further they would take things to the point that they think that Christ is teaching self-mutilation in Matthew 5:29, 30. Funnily, Paul uses the body and blood as an imagery for communion in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. I wonder if on that night, the disciples actually ate from Christ's flesh and drank His blood also.

1 Corinthians 11:27

Paul gave specific instructions:

1. Take the Lord's Supper thoughtfully, because we are declaring that Christ died for our sins (11:26).
   
2. Take it worthily (11:27).
   
3. We should evaluate ourselves and see if we have any unconfessed sins (11:2 cool .
   
4. We should be properly ready on our belief and love for Christ.
   
5. We should be considerate of others (11:33).
   
6. Wait until everyone eats in a unified and orderly manner.
   

This really has nothing to do with whether or not we are literally eating and drinking Christ's body and blood. If you look above, again, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, Christ said that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood. If taken literally, that means cannibalism.

James 5:14-15

The person is saying that verse 15 means that the man will be saved. Not necessarily salvation. Let's look in the NIV, which says, "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." (emphasis mine) So the person will get well, not saved. And of course, people can pray for others and ask God to forgive others. This doesn't necessarily mean that the person himself can say to the other person, "Your sins are forgiven." For a better explanation, "The prayer offered in faith" does not refer to the sick person, but rather the person who is praying for the people. God heals, not faith.

Colossians 1:24

The person here sounds like he's saying that Christ's death was inadequate, that we must do our part to be saved. Paul does not mean that Christ's suffering was insufficient. Paul could be saying that suffering is unavoidable when bringing the Gospel of Christ to the world. When we suffer, we can endure it joyfully, because it changes lives and brings people to God's kingdom.

James 2:24

Easiest response here, since I've answered it before. While we are not saved by what we do, but by what God has done for us, the thing is is that if our faith is true, then it will result in good deeds.

I do not have any misconceptions. Those were reasonable, yet somewhat ironic (sarcastic) responses. I said that if we are to take it literally, then "I would wonder how much further they would take things to the point that they think that Christ is teaching self-mutilation in Matthew 5:29, 30." It showed the redundancy in the persons site that Christ wasn't actually telling them to actually eat from His flesh and drink His blood.



But Christ wasn't teaching cannibalism.



I don't agree with the "You are what you eat" concept. We don't become more like Christ by what we do, in this case, taking the Communion (though we should not be idle Christians, and we should go and spread the Gospel to the world). I'm going to further explain John 6. The "flesh and blood" concept that was spoken of in 6:54 pointed to Christ as as the crucified one and the source of life. If we were to take such things in a literal sense, as the person at the site was suggesting, then it'd also be funny to believe that Jesus was really a bread.



No.

Ok i want you to get something clear.. please dont conterdict the things we do... got it? if u dont listen i will report this post for making fun of catholics.......

so Kutsuke if we are pagan and contridict ourselves, then show me where you believe this to be the case and I will talk about. But it is summer and it will be a slow response because of vactions and such. But feel free to talk, this is what this thread is about.

punks...I am not offended, for me to fix prejudice there has to be some to fix.

Many instances of pagan symbols and even satanic sybols appear throughout the vatican and the popes and bishops.

They use many Masonic symbols there, such as the obelisk in St. Peter's Square...It is also found in the U.S. , and *gasp* look at that! The place where God did not allow His people to stay! Egypt!