Christ initiated some of the sacraments and they are rituals. Baptism is a ritual. The Eucharist is a ritual. If rituals flow out of the faith experience of the Church then they are from God through Jesus Christ from whom all good things come.
First, you don't have to have the actual word "priesthood" mentioned in Acts to see the structure of the Church clearly being established in Acts. St. Paul in his commentary on Ps. 109:4 in the Epistle to the Hebrews develops amply the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ, drawing a clear comparison between it and the priesthood of the Old Testament. In the same sense, the word "pope" did not come into use for some time after the death of Peter, but Acts is quite clear of the primacy Peter enjoyed among the other Apostles. He was clearly the head of the church. It time the term "papa" meaning "father" became applied to his successor, and it became "pope." The Church, like all things, evolves. Just because something is not strictly mentioned in the Bible does not mean it is not valid. The Bible is not the sole source of truth, inspiration or faith. But to answer your question, there are numerous references to the priesthood in Paul's letters (He 7:24; 1 Co 9:13; as well as in 1 Pe 21:5; Rev 1:5-6 and Rev 20:6.
1. Christ did not call them "sacrements" 2. these rituals you speak of were started by Christ not men. Jesus was baptized himself. So apparantly he did condone the practice. 3. The rituals spoken of in the book of Mark which I posted earlier were introduced by men, Jews, and were at best a perversion of the law of Moses. Corban for instance was a way around taking care of the mother and father. And it was "explained" away by religion. there is NO ritual I know of where Christ prays to Moses, or some dead saint to intercede for him to the father. If you can pray to a dead saint, why not just go ahead and pray right to the man in charge? makes no sense. This is a catholic ritual that has no biblical basis and did not "flow" from a faith experience. All warm words but if the bible speaks let us proclaim it, yet where the bible is silent let us also be silent, good words to live by, essentialy do not add to the word of God for you as man and the Catholic Religion or ANY religion is NOT inspired/ordained to change the message. The message is complete. Christ is the message, not the rituals of man. Eucharist is not a biblical word. When Christ took unleavened bread, broke it and said, THIS IS MY BODY....he did not say, this is a Eucharist, rename it so. maybe it's just sematics to you but I'll take the safe side of the road.
The seven sacraments are all Biblical. Intercessary prayer is also Biblical, although it is not a sacrament.
Damnit people. Enough with the bible quoting! This was supposed to be about burning in hell - not scripture quotation! :hihi:
You're gonna burn in hell according to EX 3:21. JK---- but if Ex 3:21 has anything to do with burning in hell it would be ironic.
You are getting too tied up in semantics. It does not make any difference if words like eucharist and sacraments were used in the Bible. That fact does not deny them credibility. Eucharist merely means "thanksgiving." The important fact is that Christ established the ritual of breaking bread and sharing wine as a feast of remembrance of him. It does not matter what you call it. Same thing with the sacraments. It does not matter what you call them. There is a huge difference between being "safe" and being rigid.
it would be nice if we could assemble a list of people who are burning in hell. surely i am, because i disrepect jesus regularly. sucks for me because otherwise i am a better person than pretty much anyone any of you have ever met. red is too, because his vague beliefs in a creator just arent gonna cut it. rex is gonna burn extra hot, because like me he seems sort of stunned by the stupididty of christianity. cparso will be lit up by a vengeful god, because he doesnt love our lord either. also some of the guys who think they are christian will join us in the pool of fire because they are misinterpretin the word of our lord. which of the "christians" here are following the wrong path is up for debate (in one of the most unsolvable debates you can imagine). i wonder if us hellburners will be able to report on the wretchedness of our condition to each other, as well as the lucky ones who bought into the gospel truth of the lord. yunno, like can we communicate the depths of our fiery pain, or do we suffer silently. seems like every bad situation is a little better when you have some homeez to complain with. but i am considering a deathbed reversal of my ways, so i can sneak in the back door of heaven and hang out with the good guys. maybe stop by supafans place and see what he is up to.
huh? one has a capitol T in it? comeon man I am trying to understand you here but really. I have to tell you here, yet again that EVEN secular history recognizes that Christianity did not EXIST before the early Church. and Since Catholicism IS a form of Christainity, it would stand to reason it did not exist before the the new testament. Now, who is taking scripture out of context? pot meet kettle. here let me help you with the verses you quoted. First you quoted Paul. Paul was all about Doctrine. You so conviently quote his epistles but neglect to mention the meat of his emploring to the congregation he was writing to. 1. (1 Cor. 11:2) and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you; meaning, among other things, if not soley, baptism and the Lord's supper, which he received from Jesus. This Paul gave to them. see (1 Corinthians 11:23) Reason for these being the "traditions" you speak of? simple, since Christ had already be sacrificed, Christians were no longer bound by Mosaic law. if this were true, Catholics would also sacrifice bulls and goats, and we know this is not done. so the "traditions" would have to be those instituted since the death of Christ. In principle that would be Baptism and The Last Supper. ( unless you can think of others, since you failed to point out the exact traditions we were refering to, I thought I'd take the liberty to point these out. Back to the Corinthians, many of them kept and observed these "sacrements" as you call them out of Love to him and with a view to his glory in the original form in which it was delivered to them by the Apostle. But if Paul was alive now could he approve of the method these are delivered today? I doubt it neither of these ordinances are kept as they were given to the early Christians...... as to baptism, it is not attended to either as to subject or mode, both are altered, and are different from the original institution. Such is the way of man to make "better" what God has ordained as perfect. Even the Lord's supper or last supper is changed. Where did Christ change water into wine in the upper room? he did not. So this tradition that was passed on to the early Churches by the Apostles, has changed. For does not the "Preist" change water to wine before partaking the Lord's supper? How is this accomplished? Was not Christ and the APostles the only one's capable of miracles and the ability to pass them on? This must have been quite impressive magic to those poor heathens of Spain, but in this day and age, we know it ain't happenin. sorry man. :nope: Christ changed water to wine at the WEDDING not in the upper room. I guess the Catholic church being the "authority" here on earth, since the bible clearly left out that part, deemed it "OK" to change the commemorative representation of the body and blood of Christ how nice. you know Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians pleading with them NOT to alter the Lord's supper lest the eat and drink damnation to their souls. Looks like the safe thing to do would be follow the original Gospel and do it that way... you'd think... 2 (2 Thess. 2:15). Again the traditions were NOT jewish since they were dead to the mosiac law and since there was NO Pope or Catholic church in the early Christian church, there could not possilby have been Catholic traditions. What is it about history and a basic time line you don't understand? Why would the authors have not mentioned EVEN ONCE the pope or the catholic church if they intended it to exist? And where did they pass on either orally or by tradition , which incidently is why they were inspired to write it down, you use this as an excuse as if somehow some Catholic part of the church was accidnetly not written down but was passed on oraly by tradition. So let me get this straight, theese guys were inspired yet they conviently forgot to mention the whole grand scheme of the church organization? No they didn't, they outlined the method of worship and it does not include a Pope sorry. Again show me title and verse where a "pope" is ordained. Oh yeah they forgot that because the bible is not the "only" authority, the church is and the church is catholic, how nice did that work out? tail wags the dog. 3. (2 Tim. 2:2). this does not prove any point you 've attempted to make, it actually proves my point. Entrust to faithful men would imply they would not change the method of Baptism or other such tradition ordained by Christ. Faithful men would acknowledge no other "authority" was needed other than his ordained word for salvation. Faithful men would entrust Christ with the ability to pass on the message in the method Paul told Timothy and not re-name the church and bring man made traditions into it, in the name of making it "better". These same faithful men saw reason to gather together and canonize all the books of the bible into one for just this purpose. So what did they miss? they felt it necessary as time went on to put these things together in one book. It is the complete source for salvation, it has all you need to know in it about getting to heaven. It is not instructed to them in this manner. Because like you said the bible did not exist then. Early Christian biblical authors were TOOLS used and inspired to write the teachings of Christ down for record. the Lord used the Holy SPirit through these men to create the bible. did they miss something? The teachings of the early church formed the bible. Paul and Peter, John, etc... were teachers and writers of the Bible. Since they wrote it, I would assume they also taught it and vice versa. I guess they "could" be something that was passed on by word of mouth and made it's way to the Catholic church only, but I really doubt it. If it was that important wouldn't they have written it down, since they were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit? again I cannot prove a point to someone who says that the bible isn't the only authority the church is and the catholic church is the church. You have closed the door to reason. Wouldn't it make sense that if the Lord wanted there to be traditions added or changed he would have spoken of them. maybe it's just not important enough to worry about. You tell me? I'll answer your question with a question. If Peter was the first Pope, then where did he authorize the torture of gentiles to become Christians? see spainish inquisition. if he did not realize this would happen, surely his sucessors would have kept the traditions of God and Christ. This must have been one of those Oral traditions not spoken of in the new testament. I see now excuse me, you're right. I can see where it wouldn't have been written down by Peter or paul since it goes agaisnt everything Christ teaches. good to keep wraps on that sort of thing. :dis: The way I see it your biggest problem is your "blind" faith in catholicism. It's fine to be a devout catholic, but ask the hard questions, don't just follow blindly, ask questions like "why does the Priest change water to wine?" and when they tell you that Jesus did, ask them if when he installed the Lord's supper as a means to remember his sacrifice how did he do it? did he change water to wine? and if not why was this added? and is it OK to add things like this? if the answer is yes, then ask Who said? Ask why and then study for yourself, don't even take my word for it, go look it up.
this is speaking of Christ's victory over death. "many priests" speaks of the old testament levites and they could not conquer death yet he ( Jesus ) could and save them also. This verse has nothing to do with the organization of the church after Christ's death. again this had nothing to do with organization of the Church, Paul was refering to the practice of Jewish Preists under the Moasiac law to Partake of some parts of the offering given to the alter. see the part in bold above. he was drawing an example for the corithians for many of them were former jews and knew well the practice of the Levites for taking meat from the alter. Context man context..... use it. there are only 5 chapters in 1st Peter, sorry I cannot come up with anything for this scripture. 2 peter has only 3 chptrs.... asleep at the wheel are we? :yelwink2: I do believe this goes to translation of the original greek writings by jewish authors. the writer was speaking of the hereafter. Below is a GREAt explaination by John Gill. see the explaination above, it goes to context, he is talking about after you and I die, not the method of which the church should organize,..... totally different subject. here let me help you make your point, see verses below: this DOES go to the early orginaztion of the Christian church. it is self explainatory, well at least it would appear to be so. the name Bishop and elder have the same meaning, in other words, the same person (s). take care.
