Should I be rebaptised?

[BreadOfLife]

I never said the word 'Trintiy' was in the Bible...Einstein.

I never said the word 'Incarnation' was in the Bible...Einstein.

I showed you the verse that says we must receive Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

Altar calls are not a requirement in the Protestant Churches. If they have them, fine. If not, fine. No big deal.

You are ignorant of what James is saying. See the examples given in (James 2:21, 25) Do I need to draw you a picture again.

Luther is not a 'Father' of mine. I know you like to use the word 'Father' since you Romanists put so much emphasis on the 'Fathers'. But, sorry, I don't see Luther as a 'Father'. As to his view of the book of 'James', he was mistaken. See. That shows you that his opinion of a book did not stop a book from becoming recognized as from God.

So go ahead and submit to your Roman Pontiff. Kiss his ring or his foot or whatever needs kissing. I will pass on that silliness.

Stranger

WRONG

James shows clearly that Belief and Works are the 2 components that make up Faith.
You cannot have one without the other - and THAT'S why Luther rejected this Book.

And Luther IS your Protestant Father. You wouldn't have this and some of the other aberrant theological beliefs that you do without his inventing them.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, the Catholic Church is the universal Church of Christ.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct.

I will never be a Romanist.

And neither will I.
I'm a Catholic . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you read the original it does not say that BoL, which I'm pretty sure you are already aware of on some level tbh. I mean you can conflate your beliefs with faith if you like, if you need, but you are only going to end up fooling yourself I guess

James 2:19 Lexicon: You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

Which the English there is scribed too, you have to click the link now to find Faith.
and if the two are synonymous to your mind then so be it
I wish you the best ok

WRONG.

James 2:19
You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear.
σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν |ὁθεός|, καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶφρίσσουσιν.

The Greek word used in BOTH places is pist-yoo'-o, which means:
1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
1a) of the thing believed
1a1) to credit, have confidence

In other words - "BELIEVE" . . .

 

[Pearl]

you can tag another member by putting @ in front of their username, dunno if you are aware or not
@Pearl

Thanks for the info. Not sure how that works but will give it a try.

 

[bbyrd009]

Thanks for the info. Not sure how that works but will give it a try.

Ha funny how you can't see something til you see it, then you can't see how you couldn't see it, huh?
Just type the username exactly, and right after the @ thing, no spaces,
@bbyrd009, oh and then I guess choose from the drop-down choices

 

[Pearl]

Ha funny how you can't see something til you see it, then you can't see how you couldn't see it, huh?
Just type the username exactly, and right after the @ thing, no spaces,
@bbyrd009

I have tried it. And does it send an alert to the person named?

 

[bbyrd009]

WRONG

WRONG

You are ABSOLUTELY correct

now cmon G, you honestly cannot figure out why you are so ill, and no one pays you the least attention yet? Do you just want to end your life in that cage with strangers, getting poked by every passer-by? Bc idc, ok, personally Id even much prefer to just slap you on the back and sell you something you don't need irl ok
Keep pretending you know something until you fall over dead if you like though, ok with me ok

 

[bbyrd009]

I have tried it. And does it send an alert to the person named?

Yes, although apparently you can't tag yourself. But feel free to tag bbyrd009 and see. If you get the underlined tag, they get an alert I guess, yes. Might possibly be some way to disable receiving those that I am unaware of, but I think the default at least is to receive them

 

[farouk]

A key to the question is, Was whatever happened previously a Biblical baptism? and if not, the word "rebaptised" does not apply, if the first baptism was not a Biblical one.

 

[BreadOfLife]

now cmon G, you honestly cannot figure out why you are so ill, and no one pays you the least attention yet? Do you just want to end your life in that cage with strangers, getting poked by every passer-by? Bc idc, ok, personally Id even much prefer to just slap you on the back and sell you something you don't need irl ok
Keep pretending you know something until you fall over dead if you like though, ok with me ok

Another garbled, nonsensical message from our pal, bbyrd.
With all of your abbreviate acronyms - nobody ever knows what you're talking about anyway . . .

 

[tzcho2]

In my 15 years of dealing with lying anti-Catholics online - I have found that when somebody puts me on "ignore" right after I issued a challenge to their false accusations - it's because they've backed themselves into a corner that they can't get out of.
If you DON'T have any answers - then simply admit it and move on . . .

Too bad you are so closed that 15 yrs of being online on Christian forums has left you unchanged. Unfortunately until God replaces that heart you cannot receive Truth, nor have civil dialogue & nor listen to anything but the RCC bandwith. Your fruit reveals the need of salvation & to be born again with the Holy Spirit. I'm certain in fact someone who was a hindu for eg who was randomly asked to state the meaning of a particular Bible scripture would have as much chance as yourself for getting it correct. Unfortunately your posts purpose is just a RC attack upon Protestant Christians & Christ's church.
You have been proven to be very dishonest.
Lastly ,no one requires your permission to be on this thread or any other, so your wasting your breath. I know you like to harass & be petulant towards protestants who challenge the rc views in hopes to make them leave the forum you're on. God seems to have a different plan.
Please try to get over yourself.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Too bad you are so closed that 15 yrs of being online on Christian forums has left you unchanged. Unfortunately until God replaces that heart you cannot receive Truth, nor have civil dialogue & nor listen to anything but the RCC bandwith. Your fruit reveals the need of salvation & to be born again with the Holy Spirit. I'm certain in fact someone who was a hindu for eg who was randomly asked to state the meaning of a particular Bible scripture would have as much chance as yourself for getting it correct. Unfortunately your posts purpose is just a RC attack upon Protestant Christians & Christ's church.
You have been proven to be very dishonest.
Lastly ,no one requires your permission to be on this thread or any other, so your wasting your breath. I know you like to harass & be petulant towards protestants who challenge the rc views in hopes to make them leave the forum you're on. God seems to have a different plan.
Please try to get over yourself.

Another lie - what a surprise . . .

I have NEVER been "proven" to be dishonest. You may disagree with what I believe in but I have never been caught in a lie on this forum.
I HAVE caught many anti-Catholics in lies, however - and THAT'S why you don't like me

So - I issue another challenge to you - which will undoubtedly go unanswered, as usual:
Point me to ONE single post where I "Lied".

Happy hunting . . .

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Just like the believers in Baptist churches are part of the Catholic church.

Yes, I know--but not many Christians do. I think the term "Universal Church" has a better reception among non-RCs because the RCC has arrogated the title of "Catholic" to itself.

It is very easy to believe that the Vatican is specifically, the Whore of Babylon. First there is the Daniel 9:27 warning about the "people of the prince who shall come". The reference to the "prince" was, on the surface, the Roman General Titus (son of the Emperor Vespasian). Titus was the first Roman Emperor to succeed an Emperor father--and thus a prince. But, as is so often the case with the Bible, there appears to be a double reference there. Daniel links the same people (the Romans) to the Antichrist and the "End" (see Daniel 8:23-26 for a further description of the Antichrist and the timing of "a long time from now".) It is clear that the Roman Empire is the last of the four "world" empires highlighted in Daniel chapter 2. It is part iron and part clay. The "iron" part is exceedingly strong, smashing all who resist its rule. The Roman Empire was notoriously brutal toward any of those who rebelled from its rule but was relatively benign (as empires go) toward conquered people groups. The Assyrian Empire was MUCH more brutal toward conquered people. However, the Jews simply did not accept being under the heel of Rome. They plotted and rebelled constantly against Roman rule--leading to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Interestingly, Titus had the Temple looted of its treasures but did not want the Temple destroyed. However, his troops burned the Temple down anyway, in order to get at the gold lining its walls. They thus inadvertently fulfilled Jesus' prophecy that "there will be not one stone left upon another". The gold was melted by the intense heat from the burning cedar of the Temple structure and flowed down into the cracks between the foundation stones of the Temple. The solders pried the stones apart to get at the gold. The Roman-Jewish historian, Josephus, estimated that 1 million were killed during the attack by the 60,000 seasoned Roman soldiers.

The "new" Rome, represented by the clay toes on Daniel's vision likely represent a very much weakened version of the original Roman Empire--the European Union. Over this "beast" sits the Whore of Babylon--the Vatican with all of its political machinery. If one checks into the history of the Vatican, one quickly sees that it is anything but a "Holy City". The obelisk which decorates St. Peter's Square (taken from the Egyptians by the completely decadent Roman Emperor, Caligula) was set up in the center of what was the site where many, many Christian martyrs met their deaths, under their persecution by Rome. For many of them, it was the last thing that they saw when gazing up into the heavens. And that is just the beginning of abominations contained within the city-state of the Vatican. It is a death-loving cult that thoroughly dominates the RCC.

The Calvinists and Lutherans (who are much more like the RCs than they care to admit, because of Calvin's dependence on Augustine and Luther's training as a Roman Catholic theologian) and all other amillennialists believe that Daniel's prophecy was over in 70 A.D. when General Titus did what Daniel had prophesied. However, the second reference is to the time of the "End" (Daniel 9:26-27). We know that General Titus cannot be the one being referenced because he did neither of those two things that are mentioned. He did not stop the sacrifices, and he did not "set up a sacrilegious object" in the Temple. Amillennialism plays right into the hands of Antichrist who will rise to power through great deception. Only pre-millennialism gives a warning to the modern people of God.

The "Ten Kings" and the Antichrist (he will most likely be a European) will use the Whore to put his system in place. But, Scripture tells us that the Ten Kings and the Antichrist hate her, will turn on "her" and, among other things, will burn "her" with fire. (Revelation 17:16)

 

[tzcho2]

Another lie - what a surprise . . .
I have NEVER been "proven" to be dishonest. You may disagree with what I believe in but I have never been caught in a lie on this forum.
I HAVE caught many anti-Catholics in lies, however - and THAT'S why you don't like me
So - I issue another challenge to you - which will undoubtedly go unanswered, as usual:
Point me to ONE single post where I "Lied".
Happy hunting . . .

The quality of your posts look more like a troll. Actually I was being extremely generous calling your behavior dishonest. You claimed several pages ago, that you had not called anyone a liar in your post but I quoted several posts from multiple pages where You accused several other people of lying, just in this thread alone --but you continued to deny it EVEN when it is shown in your own posts. You are dishonest.
I hope & pray for your sake, that the heavenly Father God in Christ Jesus, would have mercy on you and reveal your error & His true gospel of grace through faith in Jesus alone, for your salvation.

 

[tzcho2]

Yes, I know--but not many Christians do. I think the term "Universal Church" has a better reception among non-RCs because the RCC has arrogated the title of "Catholic" to itself.

I refuse to call "the Church" the catholic church for that reason. The term has been commandeered by Rome same as the term "The Church, The bride". Rcc claims to be the head of Christianity, so goes the many lies of Rome.

 

[bbyrd009]

all

nobody

ever

you might notice the same language and syntax style here that you always employ, but of course never tolerate or even hear yourself, right. Are you really this stupid, BoL?
You're a Roman, right; dont you know why Caesar was assassinated?
I could use a Scriptural ref but I know your aversion to Scripture, no offense...

um, which I guess will be read as like condemnation or something, sorry;
what is the nice way to say "someone who ignores Scripture in favor of the established traditions of their overlords," idk. Guess that isn't it either lol. Sorry ok.

Btw "ok" means "okay" or "alright," and google or even "say aloud" in your Rclick can help with the others, or you could always (gasp) ask if you don't know, not that any of them are material anyway, they never change the meaning of the sentence iow. See how ignoring "in other words" there at the end makes no material difference? But you just can't fix stupid, see. I'm mostly doing you a favor imo, now at least in that day you can still claim ignorance, if you like.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The quality of your posts look more like a troll. Actually I was being extremely generous calling your behavior dishonest. You claimed several pages ago, that you had not called anyone a liar in your post but I quoted several posts from multiple pages where You accused several other people of lying, just in this thread alone --but you continued to deny it EVEN when it is shown in your own posts. You are dishonest.
I hope & pray for your sake, that the heavenly Father God in Christ Jesus, would have mercy on you and reveal your error & His true gospel of grace through faith in Jesus alone, for your salvation.

I don't deny that I have exposed dozens of people here for lying. that's what I DO here.

What I DON'T do is call people "Liars." Never have - and YOU'VE never been able to produce a single post where I did. Just more of your dishonest accusations . . .

 

[tzcho2]

I don't deny that I have exposed dozens of people here for lying. that's what I DO here.

What I DON'T do is call people "Liars." Never have - and YOU'VE never been able to produce a single post where I did. Just more of your dishonest accusations . . .

And, ya, thanks for proving me correct.
And once again, thanks as always for being the cautionary tale, warning people away from the Roman religion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

you might notice the same language and syntax style here that you always employ, but of course never tolerate or even hear yourself, right. Are you really this stupid, BoL?
You're a Roman, right; dont you know why Caesar was assassinated?
I could use a Scriptural ref but I know your aversion to Scripture, no offense...

um, which I guess will be read as like condemnation or something, sorry;
what is the nice way to say "someone who ignores Scripture in favor of the established traditions of their overlords," idk. Guess that isn't it either lol. Sorry ok.

Btw "ok" means "okay" or "alright," and google or even "say aloud" in your Rclick can help with the others, or you could always (gasp) ask if you don't know, not that any of them are material anyway, they never change the meaning of the sentence iow. See how ignoring "in other words" there at the end makes no material difference? But you just can't fix stupid, see. I'm mostly doing you a favor imo, now at least in that day you can still claim ignorance, if you like.

First of all - I'm not a "Roman" - I'm an American, Einstein.

Secondly - you hypocritically chastise me for using words like "always" - then YOU use it as well.
The rest of your post is garbled nonsensical gibberish, as usual . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

And, ya, thanks for proving me correct.
And once again, thanks as always for being the cautionary tale, warning people away from the Roman religion.

TRANSLATION:
"I couldn't find any examples of you calling ANYBODY a liar."

That's what I thought . . .