Search results

No, the Roman empire became the iron/clay mixed empire of Daniel via the RCC, then the real persecution and deceptions began, murdering millions through the dark ages to eradicate anti RCC "rebels".

Precisely! Every person, no matter what denomination or persuasion that baptizes in the titles are an offshoot of Catholicism. They will all be lined up to face the firing squad along with the RCC for refusing baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. Their only...

Obey Acts 2:38. Don't be a Catholic.

To be precise, John 3:8 is a prophecy/description of Acts 2:2 to come at Pentecost, which they spoke in tongues...such are they that are born of the Spirit. Nowadays, folks simply don't believe in that process that Jesus spoke of. They just "confess Jesus" and keep the 10 commandments to be...

So falling from Grace is only a mindset, not a consequential situation(returning to sin)?

I am born again. I obeyed Acts 2:38. If I go back to practice sinning as I used to, I cannot fall from Grace and go back to the Law? Is there a "limbo" or "living purgatory" we enter in if we backslide. Does Jesus simply ignore sin in a saints life?

Yes, Jesus is the lone Shepherd of the church of Acts. Obey Acts and you will be in the sheepfold. Disobey Acts and join the RCC.

The Law describes and condems sin, right? If I practice those sins, is it the Law that condemns me? Or is it nothing that condemns me?

Right, the church of Acts, not the RCC and her daughters.

If I go back to drinking, denying Christ and practicing sinning am I still free from the Law?

Well, our obligation to stay free from the Law is to walk in the Spirit... 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Which logically means that those Christians which are NOT led of the Spirit are under the Law. Obeying Acts 2:38 initially delivers us from the Law, but...

Yes, the Law is still in effect but only for sinners. We are delivered from the Law. However, when we backslide, we go back under the Law as we fall back into habitual sin.

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. As you said, the only examples of baptism in Acts were always and only in the name of Jesus. "Father" or "Spirit" were never even one time alluded to, but only "Jesus". Modernists pretend that titles are sufficient, yet the early original church never...

No, Jesus would NEVER have been quoted but for books. Moronic, to say the least.

Buncha commentary garbage. Quote the scripture.

"Jesus" or "son"?

Scripture is our only source of truth. We must always compare our ideas with scripture alone. It is idiotic and suicidal to run to extra Biblical literature to seek another kind of "truth" to add to scripture, as the RCC and yourself does so eloquently. The Bible is my roadmap to heaven...

That's the truth! 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: I dare you to do it.

If it is not from scripture it is not to be adhered to. It is simple as that.

Question for all. We know that scribes copied the original scriptures before they were destroyed by disintegration. Were these historic events copied like the original manuscripts of scripture?