WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

Marymog said:

Thank you. 1 Corinthians 14:29 (in context) has NOTHING to do with admonishing one for a false belief or interpretation of Scripture. Paul didn’t rebuke Peter on the matter of doctrine or interpretation of Scripture. He rebuked him on a personal decision (not to eat with certain people). So that analogy doesn’t fit either. Matthew 18:17 is probably the passage you are looking for and that passage makes clear that The Church elders do the “judging” on who is to be treated as a pagan or tax collector.

If Scripture is so clear on it’s own then why have men, for 2,000 years, been arguing about the lack of clarity in it? After all, look at all that “clarity” the Protestants DON’T have. None of them agree with the other and they all think they are right.

Click to expand...

What is a "Prophet"? What is a "Teacher"? -- There are False Prophets and False Teachers, and we MUST hold BOTH accountable for their FALSE TEACHINGS.

And as an example of holding each other accountable, Paul rebuked PETER A DISCIPLE for his HYPOCRISY which is CONTRARY to SCRIPTURAL TEACHINGS. And to go a little further, Ananias and Sapphira BOTH dropped DEAD at Peter's feet.


Perhaps you have a different agenda than me.
Bobby Jo

Bobby Jo said:

What is a "Prophet"? What is a "Teacher"? -- There are False Prophets and False Teachers, and we MUST hold BOTH accountable for their FALSE TEACHINGS.

And as an example of holding each other accountable, Paul rebuked PETER A DISCIPLE for his HYPOCRISY which is CONTRARY to SCRIPTURAL TEACHINGS. And to go a little further, Ananias and Sapphira BOTH dropped DEAD at Peter's feet.


Perhaps you have a different agenda than me.
Bobby Jo

Click to expand...

Hi Bobby Jo,

I agree with you that Paul pointed out Peter’s hypocrisy. Being a hypocrite is not practicing what you preach. Peter was preaching the word...he just wasn’t following the word; he was a hypocrite. Sooooo, once again, that analogy has NOTHING to do with who decides what the truth of Scripture is. Peter knew the truth; he just wasn’t practicing it.

Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied to Peter (a Church elder) which was a lie to God (Acts 5:4). Soooooo that analogy has NOTHING to do with who decides what the truth of Scripture is and who is to be admonished if they don’t agree with The Church. They didn’t disagree with The Church on doctrine. They lied, they died.

Would you like to try another analogy that fits our discussion?


Mary

Marymog said:

... Would you like to try another analogy that fits our discussion? ...

Click to expand...

Some people want to walk in their own shoes, and so I let them.

Bobby Jo

Brakelite2 said:

Here's a photo of a recent Catholic convert being baptized. Glad God has a sense of humor.View attachment 9498

Click to expand...

Had you done your homework - you would have seen that this was a joke - NOT a real Baptism.
The whole thing was staged as a light-hearted joke.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/priest-says-water-gun-baptism-photo-meant-to-be-funny-51057
“This is what Fr. Steve said about this:
1) The family had requested for him to do this pose as copied from several posts of priests circulating around the internet. He agreed because he thought it was funny.
2) The water in the water gun is not holy water and was squirted towards the dad and not the baby for humor impact,” explained Saint Mark Catholic Church of Manchester, Tennessee in a Facebook post Tuesday.
“Bottom line, it was meant to be for fun,” the parish post added.
The priest in the photo is Fr. Stephen Klasek, who is pastor of two parishes: St. Mark, and Saint Paul the Apostle in nearby Tullahoma. Klasek, a priest of the Diocese of Nashville, has been ordained 37 years.

Maybe someday, the anti-Catholics around here will start doing their homework . . .

Bobby Jo said:

You're entitled to believe whatever you want. GOD gives you that free choice. -- However, your "beliefs" are not necessarily FACTS. Perhaps you would be better served obeying SCRIPTURE rather than Doctrines.

Bobby Jo

Click to expand...

Ummmmmm, then, how do you explain tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that they got to this confusion by simply "obeying" Scripture?

WHICH one of them is correct?
The one YOU agree with?

BreadOfLife said:

Ummmmmm, then, how do you explain tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that they got to this confusion by simply "obeying" Scripture?

WHICH one of them is correct?
The one YOU agree with?

Click to expand...

There ain't a church that I "agree with". They're ALL FAILED. And if you don't believe me, join one and it will be imperfect.

Bobby Jo

BreadOfLife said:

Once again – what YOU and your fellow “Oneness” friends fail to grasp is the meaning of the term, “In the name of”.

It does NOT mean “recite the actual name” – otherwise, you wouldn’t baptize in the name of “Jesus Christ.”
“Christ” is a TITLE – not a name.

This not only destroys your position – but completely supports the notion that “in the name of” is simply talking about AUTHORITY.

Philologists have ALWAYS recognized this to be the case.
According to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange/:
Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding: Old English nama, noma "name, REPUTATION," from Proto-Germanic *namon

(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"), from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").

We've all experienced the power of namedropping in our lives. People respect us and our opinions if they believe we are connected to someone with GREATER REPUTATION AND AUTHORITY.

In all cultures, people of authority have always lent their REPUTATION and their AUTHORITY to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations. The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the REPUTATION and AUTHORITY of another person.

English Reports Annotated - Pages 1505-2672, 1505, page 2048:
...an action on a board given to trustees of an industrial society before the act may, after registration under the act, be brought in the name of the newly -incorporated body.

“In the name of” meaning:

Macmillan Dictionary
1. representing someone or something
2. using the authority given by someone or something

Collins Dictionary
1. in appeal or reference to
2. by the authority of; as the representative of

Idioms.TheReferenceDictionary.com
1. Based on the authority of someone or something. We proclaim these things in the name of God. In the name of King John, I command you to halt.
2. With someone or something as a basis, reason, or motivation.

Thesaurus.com
- through - at the hand of
- supported by - through the agency of
- via - with
- through the medium of
- under the aegis of
- with the assistance of

As I indicated before – Jesus commanded the Apostle to Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Peter and the rest of the NT Church understood that Baptizing "in the name of Jesus" was Baptizing by His AUTHORITY.

Click to expand...

Wow, you think the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Father Son and Holy Ghost.

The Apostles always and only used the name of Jesus Christ at water baptism, with never even alluding to Father or Holy Ghost.

I bet you don't even know what the name of the Son is, since you baptize in the word "Son" instead of using His name.

Probably because you have no proper name and everyone called you "son"?

BreadOfLife said:

No - the only ones "denying" Jesus here is YOU and your fellow heretical "Oneness" friends.

Jesus COMMANDED His followers to Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This was by HIS AUTHORITY - and you are denying this fact in favor of your perversion that He simply made a "mistake" that the Apostles later "corrected".

I gave you several etymological and philological sources that prove your position is as WRONG as abortion - but your spiritual pride won't allow you to admit your folly.

As for WHAT Baptism is and accomplishes - you don't have to tell me.
We Catholics are the ones who taught this to the world . . .

Click to expand...

What is that singular name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

BreadOfLife said:

Had you done your homework - you would have seen that this was a joke - NOT a real Baptism.
The whole thing was staged as a light-hearted joke.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/priest-says-water-gun-baptism-photo-meant-to-be-funny-51057
“This is what Fr. Steve said about this:
1) The family had requested for him to do this pose as copied from several posts of priests circulating around the internet. He agreed because he thought it was funny.
2) The water in the water gun is not holy water and was squirted towards the dad and not the baby for humor impact,” explained Saint Mark Catholic Church of Manchester, Tennessee in a Facebook post Tuesday.
“Bottom line, it was meant to be for fun,” the parish post added.
The priest in the photo is Fr. Stephen Klasek, who is pastor of two parishes: St. Mark, and Saint Paul the Apostle in nearby Tullahoma. Klasek, a priest of the Diocese of Nashville, has been ordained 37 years.

Maybe someday, the anti-Catholics around here will start doing their homework . . .

Click to expand...

RCC baptisms and holy water dipping when entering service are definitely funny business.

Brakelite2 said:

Here's a photo of a recent Catholic convert being baptized. Glad God has a sense of humor.View attachment 9498

Click to expand...

LOL!

Bobby Jo said:

There ain't a church that I "agree with". They're ALL FAILED. And if you don't believe me, join one and it will be imperfect.

Bobby Jo

Click to expand...

Ahhhh - so your problem is with Christ, then - is that it?
You believe that he lied in Matt. 16:18 when He promised that His Church would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell??

Truther said:

What is that singular name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

Click to expand...

Who says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have a "singular" name?

Perhaps you need to study your Bible . . .

Truther said:

Wow, you think the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Father Son and Holy Ghost.
The Apostles always and only used the name of Jesus Christ at water baptism, with never even alluding to Father or Holy Ghost.
I bet you don't even know what the name of the Son is, since you baptize in the word "Son" instead of using His name.
Probably because you have no proper name and everyone called you "son"?

Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't have the capacity to read.

I explained everything in post #150 - and nowhere did I mention anything about singular names.
It's ALL about AUTHORITY. Go back and read the post.

By the way - "Jesus Christ" isn't a name, Einstein - "Jesus" is.
"Christ" is a title . . .

BreadOfLife said:

Ahhhh - so your problem is with Christ, then - is that it? ...

Click to expand...

Yeah, you guessed it. Jesus lies, misrepresents Scripture, and slanders fellow Christians. -- Good Call.


I thought this individual was fairly reputable, but I don't always guess right.
Bobby Jo

Truther said:

RCC baptisms and holy water dipping when entering service are definitely funny business.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the big fat lie represented by the picture that @Brakelite2 posted.

Pay attention . . .

Bobby Jo said:

Yeah, you guessed it. Jesus lies, misrepresents Scripture, and slanders fellow Christians. -- Good Call.
I thought this individual was fairly reputable, but I don't always guess right.
Bobby Jo

Click to expand...

Well, at least we found the source of your problem.
You don't believe i Christ.

Good luck with that . . .

BreadOfLife said:

Well, at least we found the source of your problem.
You don't believe i[n] Christ.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm. -- So I'll repeat what I asserted earlier:


Bobby Jo

BreadOfLife said:

Ahhhh - so your problem is with Christ, then - is that it?
You believe that he lied in Matt. 16:18 when He promised that His Church would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell??

Click to expand...

If course He didn't lie. His church did not succumb. But yours did.

Brakelite2 said:

If course He didn't lie. His church did not succumb. But yours did.

Click to expand...

My observation is that ALL churches lie, -- maybe some more than others, and maybe others more than some. But they ALL lie.


And if I were to add my personal experience, -- one "pastor" in our community was hauled off for child porn; my own "pastor" out and out LIED to me; and a dear "pastor" friend not only lied to me, but was dishonest in our religious discussions. And that doesn't include a subsequent "pastor" from a former church who had sex with a dear married pianist/secretary friend. -- And NONE were Catholic.

So call the kettle "black" all you want, but maybe you should start cleaning your own pot first.
Bobby Jo

BreadOfLife said:

I was referring to the big fat lie represented by the picture that @Brakelite2 posted.

Pay attention . . .

Click to expand...

It is hilarious looking back when I entered mass and dipping my fingers in dirty holy water and putting it on my body in the sign of the cross.
Nasty doctrine...