Search results

Look - you're obviously having a hard time understanding the point - so I'l dumb-it-down a little . . . There is not ONE example in the NT of a Baptism ritual being performed. There are only descroiptions of Baptisms - as you posted. Show me a SINGLE Baptism from START to FINISH - with all the...

I know exactly what you said - and it'sa a LIE. As I told you befoe - the BIBLE says youre wrong: 2 Pet. 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in...

Whooooaaa there. You're putting words in my moiuth. If you want to have a serious and charitable conversation - then please listen to what I said. I never said that the "Bread" in the Lord's Prayer was the "indeed" the Eucharist. I said that, along with our daily needs - it CAN be considered...

I don't know of any man who assumea that authority. Do YOU?

We son't "have" the Pope seated anywhere. He sits where he wants. Why - iis that supposed to mean something?

I see where you're confused. I NEVER saud that reciting the prayer was the same as EATING His flesh. I said that the phrase "give us this day our daily bread" could include the idea of the Eucharist. As to your statement that Jesus wasa talking about "spiritual" bread in John 6 and NOT His...

Not ONE of those examples shows an actual Baptim taking place. They are ALL mere descriptions of Baptisms. The fact is that the New Testament doesn't have a SIINGLE exa,ple of the Baptism ritual - OR the wording. This coimes from ORAL Trafition. Paul explains how Oral Tradition is ON PAR with...

This is like arguing with a box of rocks. Correction - make that TWO boxes of rocks . . . I was replying to the asinine question from @Truther: "What is the name of the son as specified by Jesus in the verse(Matt 28:19) that you posted, RC?" As I pointed out to BOTH of you geniuses - Jesus...

No - you said something stupid. The ridiculous idea that the phrase "By the Authority of" or "In the name of" is somehow complicated illustrates your abject ignorance of Scripture. Thhat's why I quoted 2 Pet. 3:16. I thought you would have figured that out by now . . .

It's important not to be ignorant of EITHER. Remember - those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

Not sure how that's possible. Eating His flesh is eating His flesh - not simply praying about it. In the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 - Jesus says: John 6:53-58 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in...

Whereas, there is no official teaching on whether this means our daily need or the Eucharist - it can mean BOTH. It actually translates as something like, "super-substantial" bread - so, yes - it CAN mean the Eucharist. The general belief is that it 's probably moth.

This is truly an idiotic statement. Can you show me a SINGLE example of a Baptism in the NT where the detaiols of the Baptism are chronicled? Can you show me a SINGLE verse where the ACTUAL WORDSsof Baptism are used? I'll wait right here for your well-researched answer - so take your time . . .

Jesus DOESN'T specify any particular names in this verse. He gives the TITLES of the Persons of the Trinity.- the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Are you REALLY this dense?

"Law degree"?? YOU think that a common term like "By the Authority of" or "In the name of" is complicated?? ANY dolt who ever watched a movie about Robin Hood or saw Smow White and the Trhree Stooges understands what this means. Pretty scary that YOU don't . . . That's NOT what the BIBLE...

Chapter and Verse - and CONTEXT, please. Also - where are the other Protestant terms I asked about - namely: "Lutheran"? "Non-Denominational"? "Revival"? "Sola Scriptura"? "Sola Fide"? "Accepting Christ as 'personal Lord and Savior'"? "Limited Atonement"? "Altar Call"? "Eternal Security"...

That's complete nonsesne and YOU know it. I can spew the SAME manure aboiuyt you SDAs worshiping Ellen G. White - and it would be as equally-stupid as your claom.

Your first mistake is in thinlking that Conastantine - a poagan emperor - had ANY power to proclaim doctrine within the Church. Although some may have wrongly held this opinion - this has NEVR been a teaching of the Church. So, the onus is on YOU tp produce this official teaching from the...

Ummmmm, no. The following is a fail . . . QUESTIONS: Ummmm - where is the word, "Protestant" in Scripture? "Lutheran"? "Non-Denominational"? "Revival"? Can you show me where the Bible mentions the word, "Bible" - or the list of Books that beliongs in it? While you're letting that sink in -...

No - you're both wrong because you don't understand Biblical language. Youlre both living examples of the dangers of personal interpretation . . .