Search results

To speak in unknown tongues… For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Hahaha

I asked you this… So, was Peter correct when he and the others always and only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in the book of Acts?

Hahaha. Let’s chat some more here in the future. You’re an awesome guy.

Nope. If I backslide I go back under the law from which I came. Then I will be judged by the law according to my works. People need to realize that. We are saved by initially obeying Acts 2:38 and we remain saved by walking in the Spirit. Only, then are we made free from the law and Remain free...

So, was Peter correct when he and the others always and only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in the book of Acts?

I was teaching publicly the Bible and lacing a bunch of my teaching with commentary from the denomination I was part of. Some of it was true looking back, but some of it was unverified. Now I witness all of my ministry peers doing the same thing. I even got tired of, quoting from the Strongs...

Of course, I know history. I just don’t believe it is perfectly accurate. I don’t quote things to others in my belief system that are not perfectly accurate. In the back of my mind, I don’t want to distort things and tell people things that others have said that may be untrue. The Bible doesn’t...

Now that you openly admitted to me that the name of the son per Matthew 28:19 is Jesus, would you agree that baptism is in the name of Jesus as per this… Go, ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and in the name of Jesus and in the name of the Holy Ghost.

The Roman Catholic Church is a mixture of Christianity, Judaism and paganism. This is why they can’t be trusted. They got their hands in all of the cookie jars.

The scripture is the only thing we can rely on for accuracy. Everybody surrounding the scripture is fighting over what they think it means. You would be shocked to actually read it and take it literally and use the Bible alone as your source and abandon all commentary. You would feel naked at...

The Catholic Church didn’t write the scriptures. They came in the fourth century. The direct disciples wrote them.

I think we’re debating early church father commentary. I see very few scriptures being argued about here. It would be kind of nice if we went back to arguing scriptures only and not saying this old man said this and this old man said that… Lol.

Another point, those that were involved in the preservation and the canonization of the Bible we’re not the writers of it. I’m OK with them, compiling it and putting it together in order but their opinions of it differed… if they wrote their opinions at all about it.

I went back and read it. I told you the answer. I know the resurrection happened by the Bible. If you really want to know how I personally believe the resurrection happened was when I received the Holy Ghost. now I know Jesus is alive for sure.

Lol… I forgot the original question. Sorry about that. Please ask?

Like, like, like, like, like,……. You are awesome. You have just broke the mold and you have split heaven wide-open with your confession that Jesus is the son per Matthew 28:19. Awesome post.

The RCC is the Wolfpack. They’re dictating to you everything between your ears. They have you arguing over things that you read on the Internet. If you became like Martin Luther and like I had to become after about 30 years of commentary, you would become sola scriptura also.

I don’t have that stuff in my house. I’m sure you don’t either. What you have is the Internet pumping it into your house. It might be artificial intelligence for all you know. I don’t look at any historical documents as perfectly accurate. There are lies filling all of history. Historians are...

OK, I want to ask you to say these words… “The name of the son per Matthew 28:19 is Jesus.” Not just the name of the son is Jesus but specifically say” the name of the son per Matthew 28:19 is Jesus”. You will get a bonus like.