Search results

Baptized in what name? I saw that, you RCC Acts skipper....naughty, naughty!

Hey, when you baptize infant baby girls, do you think they are being spiritually circumcised like the boys?

Oh stop it! LOL:)

You skipped Acts 2:38. If you were Peter and they asked you "what must we do", then what would you have told them? The above verses? If so, why would you have disagreed with Peter?

We are clawing our way back to obeying Acts 2:38. The RCC has hold of our feet and is trying with all of it's might to pull us back into her prison. The fighters are holding of by their fingernails.

Are you the Lord? Lord whom?

Protestantism is clawing it's way back to the truth and trying to shake the RCC's deceptive hook.

Acts 2:38 is simply.... we do what we must do, and God does what He must do.... 38 Then Peter said unto them, (OUR PART)Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and (GOD'S PART)ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So, obey Acts...

Like Peter's cult did?... 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ...It must be enlightening to not need remission of sins to be saved. Did you just confess...

No silly. Baptism is the new covenant sign. Circumcision is the old covenant sign. You think one covenant fulfills another. Your idea excludes the ladies by your reasoning, inadvertently saying that only the males are "circumcised spiritually" for the females, which were not required...

You apparently think a prophecy is a fulfillment. You have Jesus coming at the vials of wrath and before Rome is even judged. I guess Rome is Christ's nemesis, the "Joker" and Jesus is "Batman", to duke it out a while while he sets up His reign? Per you... Jesus returns here?... 15...

Even worse, with a direct line to the holy mother!

The book of Rev is the depicted timeline. Rev 16 has no actual 2nd coming. Time goes by in chapters 17-18 to destroy the RCC(Rome), then in chapter 19, the Lord descends with the saints per your verse above. Then at the end of chapter 19, the destruction of the antichrist is depicted per your...

So, it is not the scripture but some writing about something? You call that inerrant? Do you believe all other commentary too? Sola Scriptura.

I think we need to stop believing in our beliefs and begin to believe in Acts 2:38. We are.... like I used to say to people witnessing the truth to me in the 70's(as I was drying a stolen pot plant in the oven)..... "I was born a Catholic and will die a Catholic". Yep, stubborn in our...

Acts 2:42 is called the didache? I never heard of that. Is it linked to something secret?

What book of the N.T. is that?

Because they did not believe in such a thing as "trinity".

Absolutely. This is why we debate the scriptures and not doom folks that are not following Acts 2:38. For instance, I think the Acts 2:38 skipper is in deep trouble without having their sins remitted, but I cannot say they are damned for hell. I can only tell them to fix it and don't gamble.

No silly, the adult Jews' covenant was circumcision on all their males(only)....no females. Circumcision was akin to putting a "faith mark" on folks...that's it. The RCC got mixed up and think circumcision is the equivalent to water baptism for their infants....then also, un-scripturally...