Search results

Ummmm, the document is called, The Teachings of the Twlve Apostes or The Doctrine of the twelve Apostles. And YOU don't think they had anything to do with it? Why are there ZERO rebuttals to this document? Surely, the surviving Apostled would have condemned this wirj if it was NOT orthodox...

And that's precisely what I was talking about, Einstein . . .

Uhhhh, no kidding, Sherlock, I never made that claim. It;s funny - the people in ithe FIRST century understood what "in the name of" meant - even though it completey stupefies a peson like YOU. Observe these excerpts from the FIRST century Church document, the Didache . . . "baptize into other...

Let's just say that you're right about the dating. There were still Apostles walking the earth. Can you show me a contemporary writing from that period that either contradicts ir condemns the Didache? Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained by Peter and was a lifelong disciple of the Apostle John...

See - I KNEW I would regret this after having read the first of what promises to be MANY unbiblical rants. You certainly didn't disappoint . . . And you’re WRONG about it not being dependent on water, BOTH Jesus and Peter make this perfectly clear . . . John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly...

And YOU don’t have the mental capacity to understand that baptizing “IN THE NAME OF” Jesus Christ is to do it exactly the way HE said to do it in Matt. 28:19: In the name of the Father name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Your quasi-Christian cult is disobeying Jesus. Consider yourself...

WRONG, son.. We Baptize “in the name of Jesus Christ” by submitting to HIS Authority when He commanded: Matt. 28:19 “ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” And that's what Peter did in Acts 3:38 . . .

I know I’ll regret this because I’ll have to suffer through your verbose rants and bizarre word-salads – but here goes . . . As early as the FIRST century, full immersion was NOT the only method of Baptism. In the document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles),we read the following...

But they don’t have history and documentation behind them to PROVE it. The Catholic Church DOES . . .

A person may disagree with Catholic teaching and choose to worship God differently - but he accepts the historic facts about the Church. A liar will revise history, LIE about what the Church actually teaches and refuses to accept correction when presented with irrefutable facts.

You are BORN in sin, Einstein (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:19, Eph. 2:3, 1 Cor. 15:22). Baptism removes this sin at ANY age. That’s why Peter Baptized the entire household of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14) and Paul Baptized the entire households of the Philippian Jailer (Acts...

The Son's name is Jesus - but that is totally irrelevant to the topic. The REAL question is, "What does 'In the name of' mean? I've already schooled you about this on numerous occasions - but here's a refresher . . . Definition of “In the name of” . . . According to English Language & Usage...

Nobody “melted down”. It’s just a stupid and irrelevant question based on YOUR ignorance of an idiom. We all know the name of the Son. When Jesus - who is GOD commands us to do something, we DO it. He commanded the Church to Baptize in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY...

My mission here has never been about “convincing” anybody of anything. It is about exposing anti-Catholic LIES. I don’t have a problem with people who disagree with Catholic teaching. However – I have NO tolerance for LIARS and I will expose them every chance I get. If this upsets you – then...

How long have you been on this forum? There’s no “mistake” here - just a mission to spread lies about the Church and the Scripturees. He's been corre ted repeatedly by just about every Christian on this board. This guy has been here for years spouting the same manure over and over again. It...

What did Jesus say to fo in Matt. 28:19? ONE more time, Eintein . . . 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...

I don’t know if it’s that you’re just not that bright – or if you’re a blatant liar. I think it’s a little of BOTH. In either case – you’re a one-trick pony. BOTH of these issues can be summed up in your LAST idiotic sentence above in RED . . . As I schooled you earlier – there is no such thing...

CAREFUL - your ignorance is rearing its ugly head . . . First of all - there absolutely WAS a Church of Rome in the first century - evangelized by Peter and Paul. What there wasn't was all of the Protestant or quasi-Christian sects yours. Secondly - the Catholic Church is NOT called the...

Yes, I've had many wacjy exchanges with him about hius aberrant beliefs . . .

This is the kind of blunder one makes what he ignotantly yanks verses out of their proper context Peter spoke wisely about YOU when he wrote: 2 Pet. 3:16 There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the...