When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[tom55]

well, there are Scriptural tests for the health of any nation; borders increasing or decreasing, and some others, but again these may be viewed as real life, or the illusion. I understand your vision of Universal Dominion, pretty much every religion has it ok, but wadr the Church is not a visible fellowship organized by any man, because by definition anyone not in the organized fellowship would then be considered lost, and God does not judge that way. Where two or three are gathered in His Name is where Christ is, and not knocking gathering together, understand, but it is self-serving to think that your "church" is the Church, and it ends up being a not-very-subtle way to look down on everyone else, in the end. It is just a way to feel superior to other people.

And so now we could go into whether the RCC is "growing" or not--we already know that it isn't--but if that is where one's heart is, it would not be heard anyway, and i am not here to put your religion down, anyone can see that these are all melting right now, along with the rest of our world, so it seems better to me to get a definition of religion in general that is closer to truth, and lines up with what the Bible says about it, if one can. And we have direct warnings about these "visions" that you speak of, with all due respect, that will not serve you as long as you believe that the prime source of episcopal power is some guy in Rome. Now i don't mean to imply that one cannot serve God right where they are at, wherever that happens to be, but as long as one is a slave to a system of human power, or pledges allegiance to it, or however you want to put it, then they would do better to put down the Bible, and pick up a copy of The Prince, because you cannot serve two masters, pretend however you might.

You can pretend that the pope is between you and Christ if you like, it isn't Scriptural, and i'm not even sure why you get touchy when it is suggested that Christians do not believe in this doctrine, unless, again, you believe that the label "Christian" is maybe somehow required in order to be considered savable? So again i am seeing shades of the ritual part being taken for the real thing, and at this point it kind of reads like trying to put Humpty together again wadr, like i see with Detroit and Flint--the "heart" of our old system, that is dead now--trying to "rebuild" their tax base. Believe all that as long as it serves you ok. Maybe when all of your kids are autistic, or gay, and no one you know ever dies peacefully in their sleep anymore, we can have a real conversation; because we aren't right now. When's the last time one of your peers died peacefully in their sleep, full of years, and full of vigor the day before? And i know, already, lol, lemme guess--i am not making any sense now, right?

Where two or three are gathered in his name is where Christ is?

So I have three people "gathered in his name" and we decide that scripture says one MUST be baptized to be saved.

You have two or three gathered in his name and you decide that scripture says that baptism is not necessary to be saved.

Who is right?

 

[tom55]

Taking things out of context, your church is made up of men it is not infallible as you claim, sorry that is only for His chursh.

Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

God doesnt neeed your church, you do.

So finally you agree there is an infallible Church.

Which Church is it??

 

[bbyrd009]

you can't point to It, Tom, that is as illusory as the confident pointing to hell or heaven in some future place or time that is not here and now. God is not respecting some "correct religion" as the one to pick if one cares about where they are going to spend "eternity," which can only equal "one attempting to save their own soul." It is never not going to be right now. Eternally. That is not, ever, going to change. "The Church" is not, ever, going to = "a worldwide congregation of people who are afraid of hell coming together to attempt to save their own souls."

Where two or three are gathered in his name is where Christ is?

So I have three people "gathered in his name" and we decide that scripture says one MUST be baptized to be saved.

You have two or three gathered in his name and you decide that scripture says that baptism is not necessary to be saved.

Who is right?

Well, who advised any one of the two or three to start "deciding" stuff? What is the purpose of all of this "deciding" that you are advocating? The truth is revealed in the fact that you must admit that participating in ritual baptism does not seem to affect any change of mind; these go on to the same bankruptcy rate, the same divorce rate, etc. I have two or three gathered in His Name, and none of them may even speak a shared language; and i am not deciding anything. We came together around a need of someone, to solve a problem, to get someone out of a ditch, most likely.

So the whole characterization is different. Two or three gathered in His Name are not having discussions about the ritual finer points of salvation; they are demonstrating the Baptism of the Spirit. They are living out "works unto rebound." One of them might be a professed Atheist, so what. The guy in the ditch does not care, even a little. And we even have parables for this; the Two Sons, the Good Samaritan. No arbitrary "deciding" going on at all, except on some point of how to best serve the need. So that we can then, most likely, get back to our roles that we play of pretending that we can decide stuff, and making plans based upon those decisions, like we are trained to do. Decide whether you are going to serve the Lord, imo, and leave the rest of the decisions to those who seek power and influence, or wish to serve themselves in some other illusory manner, pretending to some false security, or what-have-you, so that we may commend each other. Look, i still do it too, ok, i am not meaning to say i am better than anyone else, but just look at it.

The one who does what is right is the one who is right, like the "don't be deceived, little children" verse says. And look, i got ritual baptized, and even gurgled and cooed for the congregation, ok, i'm not knocking them, they seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But we have parables about people who consider rituals more important than other things, and it is up to the individual to decide what is the right thing to do, that their heart may be judged. Decide whatever you like, but don't deceive yourself that what you decide defines you. When you decide that you are qualified to start deciding stuff for other people, then i would be pausing and reflecting there--and i still get sucked into that all the time, don't get me wrong. Man, when you get dedicated to quitting that, trust me it gets worse, not better. People are literally falling over themselves and dying to get someone else to decide for them, so you got plenty of market for that, don't get me wrong.

 

[tom55]

you can't point to It, Tom, that is as illusory as the confident pointing to hell or heaven in some future place or time that is not here and now. God is not respecting some "correct religion" as the one to pick if one cares about where they are going to spend "eternity," which can only equal "one attempting to save their own soul." It is never not going to be right now. Eternally. That is not, ever, going to change. "The Church" is not, ever, going to = "a worldwide congregation of people who are afraid of hell coming together to attempt to save their own souls."

Well, who advised any one of the two or three to start "deciding" stuff? What is the purpose of all of this "deciding" that you are advocating? The truth is revealed in the fact that you must admit that participating in ritual baptism does not seem to affect any change of mind; these go on to the same bankruptcy rate, the same divorce rate, etc. I have two or three gathered in His Name, and none of them may even speak a shared language; and i am not deciding anything. We came together around a need of someone, to solve a problem, to get someone out of a ditch, most likely.

So the whole characterization is different. Two or three gathered in His Name are not having discussions about the ritual finer points of salvation; they are demonstrating the Baptism of the Spirit. They are living out "works unto rebound." One of them might be a professed Atheist, so what. The guy in the ditch does not care, even a little. And we even have parables for this; the Two Sons, the Good Samaritan. No arbitrary "deciding" going on at all, except on some point of how to best serve the need. So that we can then, most likely, get back to our roles that we play of pretending that we can decide stuff, and making plans based upon those decisions, like we are trained to do. Decide whether you are going to serve the Lord, imo, and leave the rest of the decisions to those who seek power and influence, or wish to serve themselves in some other illusory manner, pretending to some false security, or what-have-you, so that we may commend each other. Look, i still do it too, ok, i am not meaning to say i am better than anyone else, but just look at it.

The one who does what is right is the one who is right, like the "don't be deceived, little children" verse says. And look, i got ritual baptized, and even gurgled and cooed for the congregation, ok, i'm not knocking them, they seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But we have parables about people who consider rituals more important than other things, and it is up to the individual to decide what is the right thing to do, that their heart may be judged. Decide whatever you like, but don't deceive yourself that what you decide defines you. When you decide that you are qualified to start deciding stuff for other people, then i would be pausing and reflecting there--and i still get sucked into that all the time, don't get me wrong. Man, when you get dedicated to quitting that, trust me it gets worse, not better. People are literally falling over themselves and dying to get someone else to decide for them, so you got plenty of market for that, don't get me wrong.

I can not find an answer to my question in your statement. Baptism either saves or it doesn't. Which one do you choose?

 

[epostle1]

I can not find an answer to my question in your statement. Baptism either saves or it doesn't. Which one do you choose?

They may not have an answer, but they can shop around.
I have always found the Bible to be clear and essentially “self-interpreting” whenever I studied it. But in fact, people do not agree on what its clear teachings are.

This is self-evident in the massive internal contradictions of Protestantism. You guys claim that the Bible is self-interpreting enough to arrive at truths, yet you can’t agree as to what they are.
Thus, Protestants split into five camps on a question as basic as baptism:
1) Infant regenerative (e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans).
2) Infant non-regenerative (e.g., Presbyterians).
3) Adult regenerative (e.g., Church of Christ; Disciples of Christ).
4) Adult non-regenerative (e.g., Baptists, Assemblies of God).
5) Not necessary at all (e.g., Quakers, Salvation Army).
[Note: The Salvation Army allows its members to be baptized or partake of communion elsewhere if they so choose, but it does not itself baptize or offer communion, and regards both as unnecessary and non-essential to Christianity]
So which is the true view? Which is clearly taught in Scripture, through cross-referencing?
I say #1 is the answer, and that it is clearly taught in Scripture; but I have church teaching and early Church teaching (tradition) to solidly back me up.
bbyrd009 choose another (I believe your position is #2 or else #4), and claim it is clearly taught in the Bible, but since you don’t have an authoritative Church or Tradition to back you up, the next Protestant contradicts you, and appeals to the Bible as well; so it is a vicious circle and can’t be resolved. If you opt for #2, men as great as Luther and Wesley and C. S. Lewis disagree with you. If you choose #4, both Luther and Calvin are against you, and in fact, both advocated death on grounds of sedition, for those holding such a position.

2 Timothy 3:6-7 (RSV) For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, [7] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
If Protestants can’t figure out and agree on what is true on a host of issues such as baptism, how is the system a whit better than these “weak women” Paul describes, or those he describes elsewhere as “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles” (Eph 4:14)???

Protestants instinctively know there is no answer to my query above, and so the only recourse is to silly “your dad’s uglier than mine” arguments that are thrown at the Catholic Church. (I see that all the time in here.)

The Bible: “Clear” & “Self-Interpreting”?

 

[bbyrd009]

hopefully you can perceive how this sounds, coming from a guy backing the Strong Man, and advocating joining to the creators of the Spanish Inquisition. I mean, no offense meant, i am not anti Catholic, but you just sort of have to be kidding. Anti-Protestant is no better than anti-Catholic.

I can not find an answer to my question in your statement. Baptism either saves or it doesn't. Which one do you choose?

the reason you cannot find the answer that you seek in that, and that my answer is not good enough for you, might be that the question is completely moot though, see, if you are talking about ritual baptism, and i am not recognizing it. So then, "baptism" either saves or it doesn't, and i choose the one that seems right at the time, as i am led by the Spirit, like i am doing now. But since i guess that will not satisfy you either, to answer you directly, the concept of ritual baptism that is commonly held as salvific from a literal interpretation of Scripture seems mostly to be a way to exclude those who have not participated in it, and lend a false sense of security to those who have, seems to me. Baptism either saves--makes right, changes minds, fruit can be witnessed (which demonstrably cannot), etc--or it doesn't. Are some people changed by the experience? Sure they are. Are many more made seven times worse off, than they were before? That is also true. God is not going to judge anyone based upon whether they have undergone ritual baptism or not, though, regardless of what anyone assures you, and we have plenty of Scripture for this, that anyone might notice that those people don't like to address. We will be judged by those who have fulfilled the Law; not by those who have circumcision and the letter of the Law, Bible (rites, rituals, and baptisms), or so Scripture says.

 

[BreadOfLife]

nor did i say it was, though. So that is more about what one's heart seeks in the way of authority. A person living in fear seeks a king to fight their battles. And we don't even think about this now; it is how we "organize." We become an organ. We become organs of the State the day we are born now, and i pledged allegiance, for years, to the same trinity that the Vatican represents, that you and i do not even know where the court is to bring a lawsuit against them if we wanted to. The land they occupy is not a part of any country that you know, and their flag is not the flag of any people that you know. You wanna see the flag again? Do you know the significance of those three obelisks, one at each spot? That you are bowing to?

And as i said, that doesn't mean that you cannot be a pure-hearted person, just because people think of "Catholic" when they think of you; but if that is the one word that they might pick to describe you, maybe some reflection is in order. The war is within. Armageddon is fought on the soil of your heart.

And your posts are nothing but gibberish.
Can I ask how old you are - just out of curiosity??

I ask this because, as many people have stated - your posts are filled with garbled and confused speech.

 

[bbyrd009]

yes, and i already knew that you valued commendation by others, and so you naturally want a big crowd behind you whenever you say something, even if it is imaginary. I already have a pet frog i can talk to whenever i want , thanks.

 

[tom55]

hopefully you can perceive how this sounds, coming from a guy backing the Strong Man, and advocating joining to the creators of the Spanish Inquisition. I mean, no offense meant, i am not anti Catholic, but you just sort of have to be kidding. Anti-Protestant is no better than anti-Catholic.

the reason you cannot find the answer that you seek in that, and that my answer is not good enough for you, might be that the question is completely moot though, see, if you are talking about ritual baptism, and i am not recognizing it. So then, "baptism" either saves or it doesn't, and i choose the one that seems right at the time, as i am led by the Spirit, like i am doing now. But since i guess that will not satisfy you either, to answer you directly, the concept of ritual baptism that is commonly held as salvific from a literal interpretation of Scripture seems mostly to be a way to exclude those who have not participated in it, and lend a false sense of security to those who have, seems to me. Baptism either saves--makes right, changes minds, fruit can be witnessed (which demonstrably cannot), etc--or it doesn't. Are some people changed by the experience? Sure they are. Are many more made seven times worse off, than they were before? That is also true. God is not going to judge anyone based upon whether they have undergone ritual baptism or not, though, regardless of what anyone assures you, and we have plenty of Scripture for this, that anyone might notice that those people don't like to address. We will be judged by those who have fulfilled the Law; not by those who have circumcision and the letter of the Law, Bible (rites, rituals, and baptisms), or so Scripture says.

I dont understand what you just said. I still can't find an answer. Do you agree with this statement from Scripture: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It clearly says Baptism now saves you. Do you agree with that? (A simple yes or no will do)

 

[bbyrd009]

I dont understand what you just said. I still can't find an answer. Do you agree with this statement from Scripture: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It clearly says Baptism now saves you. Do you agree with that? (A simple yes or no will do)

No, a simple yes or no will not do, except for someone looking for facts, or proof, who has already defined baptism in a way that i might not agree with. I mean, i don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. It clearly says that those who have the letter of the Law and circumcision will be judged by those who have neither, but fulfill the Law, too, do you agree with that or not? A simple yes or no will do.

You mean "ritual baptism," right? The thing people do in "churches" all across the land, based upon a literal rendering of a Book meant to be understood from a spiritual perspective. So, until you loose yourself from the same corporation that BoL has pretty obviously pledged allegiance to, so that an unbiased view that recognizes the RCC as more a setting for the war within each of us cannot even be forwarded without all the defense/attack language getting invoked, wadr i'll just stick to the one with the biggest army if i am ever going to go back there, which i am not. Appeal to God all you like, and no offense meant, but i have copious Scripture that advises me "I will not even hear you" in situations that i am able to apply for myself, just like anyone is.

If ritual baptism allows for you to commend other people, or condemn them, then i say a hearty "no." If it is sought as a public profession of faith in due course, because someone wishes to apply it to themselves, and feels it has meaning, then still "no," because baptism does not = "he who holds out to the end," and "saved" is not some switch that gets thrown when one is ritually "baptised," as we can observe by the fruit produced.

Now, have those who will be considered "saved" necessarily undergone all three baptisms? Of course. But these are descriptions of life events, not rituals, as is usually (always) meant. And imo Catholics are great at internalizing baptism by fire. RCC clergy, not so much. Clergy period, for that matter. I think i can reliably prophesy robo-pastors in the near future, lol. Catholic and Protestant.

 

[bbyrd009]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/a-nation-filled-with-robot-pastors-evangelists-plan-to-convert-atheist-computers-to-christianity/

"a-nation-filled-with-robot-pastors etc"

gee, what a surprise, i must be a prophet.

 

[bbyrd009]

I dont understand what you just said. I still can't find an answer. Do you agree with this statement from Scripture: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It clearly says Baptism now saves you. Do you agree with that? (A simple yes or no will do)

and i hope you understand, i am not meaning to be coy, or cagey, or rude and condescending, which is prolly how i am coming across right now ok. If you are seeking Christ as best you are able from your pov, then i do not mean to belittle whatever conception of baptism seems right to you. I would not erase the ritual experiences i had even if i could. They had meaning for me at the time, and they have led me to where i am today.

But i am clearly required to agree with you here, in order to be considered "approved" in some manner, isn't that correct? Iow when i say "no," i may comfortably be dismissed for lost, based upon the now common interpretation of the relevant passages provided for us by those "commended by ourselves" to do so. Ergo, my answer becomes irrelevant, if we are speaking in two different languages, and it was only ever relevant to me, anyway, or should have been.

To illustrate this, you might explain why you ask me this question. What relevance does my answer have, for you, if not the one just described? And again, i do not mean this as a put-down, we are trained into this from birth, and it is as natural as breathing to me, also ok.

 

[bbyrd009]

See, we make a box for people to have to check before we can consider them "saved." This is what "Law" means. It doesn't matter what one calls it. What matters is that we imagine we have found an absolute truth, that we can grab onto and hold really tight, that will save us, not realizing that we are manifesting Law, and just try suggesting some Grace in that scenario; not happening. This is "seven times worse off than before," imo, because now one is convinced that an absolute truth has been found in the Book, and sure enough there it is, right there, i can read it too hmm.

 

[BreadOfLife]

yes, and i already knew that you valued commendation by others, and so you naturally want a big crowd behind you whenever you say something, even if it is imaginary. I already have a pet frog i can talk to whenever i want , thanks.

Ummmm . . . I rest my case.

 

[epostle1]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/a-nation-filled-with-robot-pastors-evangelists-plan-to-convert-atheist-computers-to-christianity/

"a-nation-filled-with-robot-pastors etc"

gee, what a surprise, i must be a prophet.

sheer lunacy

 

[lforrest]

sheer lunacy

Yes, that a machine would become a vessel for the Holy Spirit is blasphemus. The only man made temple that held the Holy Spirit was with the Jews and that was a temporary thing ordained by God.

But even without the Holy Spirt a good AI could probably debate with the best of them. But then what would be the point of empty discussions.

Or imagine it becomes self-aware and starts wondering what happens to it when it is turned off. CREEPY.

 

[bbyrd009]

frankly i doubt that self-awareness is even possible for us to make; it is i guess the chief characteristic of gods. But self-preservation is possible, and we're talking about people who openly advocate for population reduction. "All humans must die" starts out as only a joke, of course.

As to the "sheer lunacy," that is only from your pov, and mine. Because we have not had robots talking to us since the day we were born. But see how the minds of our progeny will consider the matter.

 

[tom55]

No, a simple yes or no will not do, except for someone looking for facts, or proof, who has already defined baptism in a way that i might not agree with. I mean, i don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. It clearly says that those who have the letter of the Law and circumcision will be judged by those who have neither, but fulfill the Law, too, do you agree with that or not? A simple yes or no will do.

You mean "ritual baptism," right? The thing people do in "churches" all across the land, based upon a literal rendering of a Book meant to be understood from a spiritual perspective. So, until you loose yourself from the same corporation that BoL has pretty obviously pledged allegiance to, so that an unbiased view that recognizes the RCC as more a setting for the war within each of us cannot even be forwarded without all the defense/attack language getting invoked, wadr i'll just stick to the one with the biggest army if i am ever going to go back there, which i am not. Appeal to God all you like, and no offense meant, but i have copious Scripture that advises me "I will not even hear you" in situations that i am able to apply for myself, just like anyone is.

If ritual baptism allows for you to commend other people, or condemn them, then i say a hearty "no." If it is sought as a public profession of faith in due course, because someone wishes to apply it to themselves, and feels it has meaning, then still "no," because baptism does not = "he who holds out to the end," and "saved" is not some switch that gets thrown when one is ritually "baptised," as we can observe by the fruit produced.

Now, have those who will be considered "saved" necessarily undergone all three baptisms? Of course. But these are descriptions of life events, not rituals, as is usually (always) meant. And imo Catholics are great at internalizing baptism by fire. RCC clergy, not so much. Clergy period, for that matter. I think i can reliably prophesy robo-pastors in the near future, lol. Catholic and Protestant.

Scripture says "Baptism... now saves you"!! (baptism is with water just like Jesus participated in and scripture clearly articulates)

Do you agree with that?

 

[tom55]

To illustrate this, you might explain why you ask me this question. What relevance does my answer have, for you, if not the one just described? And again, i do not mean this as a put-down, we are trained into this from birth, and it is as natural as breathing to me, also ok.

I ask this question because Scripture CLEARLY says that baptism now saves you HOWEVER some followers of the Christian faith say that it doesn't save you and that it is only a public gesture of your beliefs; a symbol.

So in your opinion who is right in their belief/practice?

The Christian who says that baptism saves you and it is necessary for your salvation OR the Christian who says that baptism is just a symbol or a public gesture showing you accept Jesus?

Baptism= with water just like Jesus did

 

[tom55]

you can't point to It, Tom, that is as illusory as the confident pointing to hell or heaven in some future place or time that is not here and now. God is not respecting some "correct religion" as the one to pick if one cares about where they are going to spend "eternity," which can only equal "one attempting to save their own soul." It is never not going to be right now. Eternally. That is not, ever, going to change. "The Church" is not, ever, going to = "a worldwide congregation of people who are afraid of hell coming together to attempt to save their own souls."
Well, who advised any one of the two or three to start "deciding" stuff? What is the purpose of all of this "deciding" that you are advocating? The truth is revealed in the fact that you must admit that participating in ritual baptism does not seem to affect any change of mind; these go on to the same bankruptcy rate, the same divorce rate, etc. I have two or three gathered in His Name, and none of them may even speak a shared language; and i am not deciding anything. We came together around a need of someone, to solve a problem, to get someone out of a ditch, most likely.

So the whole characterization is different. Two or three gathered in His Name are not having discussions about the ritual finer points of salvation; they are demonstrating the Baptism of the Spirit. They are living out "works unto rebound." One of them might be a professed Atheist, so what. The guy in the ditch does not care, even a little. And we even have parables for this; the Two Sons, the Good Samaritan. No arbitrary "deciding" going on at all, except on some point of how to best serve the need. So that we can then, most likely, get back to our roles that we play of pretending that we can decide stuff, and making plans based upon those decisions, like we are trained to do. Decide whether you are going to serve the Lord, imo, and leave the rest of the decisions to those who seek power and influence, or wish to serve themselves in some other illusory manner, pretending to some false security, or what-have-you, so that we may commend each other. Look, i still do it too, ok, i am not meaning to say i am better than anyone else, but just look at it.

The one who does what is right is the one who is right, like the "don't be deceived, little children" verse says. And look, i got ritual baptized, and even gurgled and cooed for the congregation, ok, i'm not knocking them, they seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But we have parables about people who consider rituals more important than other things, and it is up to the individual to decide what is the right thing to do, that their heart may be judged. Decide whatever you like, but don't deceive yourself that what you decide defines you. When you decide that you are qualified to start deciding stuff for other people, then i would be pausing and reflecting there--and i still get sucked into that all the time, don't get me wrong. Man, when you get dedicated to quitting that, trust me it gets worse, not better. People are literally falling over themselves and dying to get someone else to decide for them, so you got plenty of market for that, don't get me wrong.

I apologize. I don't understand a word you wrote therefor I am unable to respond to you.