Who founded your church?

[theefaith]

Let me show you more now..
Remember that you were recently stating that your religious organization's early church Father's told you that , according to them, what your religious organization teaches about "water saves", came down from The Holy Apostles.......including Paul who told you that Christ sent him "not to baptize"..
Remember that stuff you were showing us?
Well, It was also these same "early church fathers" who originally TITLED your religious organization, as "the cult of Mary".
Now those are your same "early church fathers" from 4-5 AD that came up with that Title.
So, would you like to tell us more about the "cult of Mary" as defined by the "early church fathers", or would you like me to do it, in a Thread?
Im happy to oblige you there........ no prob.

So, while you consider your options there, let me show you this....

Notice this quote..

"""""Baptism in water has several purposes. It is for the remission of sins, for membership in the Church, and for entrance into the celestial kingdom; it is also the doorway to personal sanctification""""


See all that water cult doctrine? Do you recognize yourself? Do you recognize your religious organization?
Notice that this quote gives all credit for the purging of sin and entrance into the Kingdom of God, as WATER BASED Salvation. = "the water saves".
Notice there is no Blood of Jesus.....Notice there is NO CROSS......No Blood Atonement.
Do you SEE THAT?
Are you LOOKING?
So, that is your theology, as you presented it to me 20 times in the last 4 days, that your religious organization taught you .

But here is the thing, BreadofLife........This that i quoted is : Jehovah's Witness Theology.
It came directly from their church doctrine.

Do you recognize it?
It sounds just like YOURS and what your religious organization teaches regarding your "baptismal regeneration" nonsense.

I thought you would want to know of another "water cult"..
Now you do.

I started a new thread on Mary

 

[Truther]

Lol...I like the "Cmon, man"! Was your intent to mock President Biden?

Anyways, I see you didn't take me up on my offer. That tells me that you are aware that you give "commentary" also and possibly aware of your own hypocrisy.

Sola Scriptura is a 16th century invention of Protestant men who revolted against The Church. Since this invention The Church has split into thousands of different denominations with dozens of different doctrines....or what you call "commentary". Confusion has reigned thru Christianity since the 16th century. Scripture makes it clear that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33)! Who is the author of confusion Truther?

C'mon man, Think about it!!

Yes...LOL

If you think my little one liners are commentary, then I will spank you with sola scriptura until you beg for my one liners.

 

[Truther]

they are not of the church or in the church nor have the authority of the apostles

Amen!

 

[Brakelite]

And according to YOUR moronic logic - after the Apostles died, the Chgurch disappeared - except for a tiny "remnant" - then reappeared in the 16th century.

Talk about man-made fairy tales . . .

You would wish it would disappear, but unfortunately for you, it didn't. It was alive and very very well, as I have testified and reminded you constantly over the years, but you being the stubborn bigoted anti-Protestant Catholic you are, you refuse to acknowledge it...even though your very own church and numerous historians since have written of them. As far as your church is concerned, she had to make up stories concerning the real church's many "heresies" in order to justify what would fulfill your wish above...to make it disappear. Those "heresies" were certainly not in accordance to Papal dogma, however, they were in accordance to scripture. But they had to disappear right, because far be it from Rome that there should be churches and believers living even on Rome's doorstep that through their lives of service and missionary endeavour, reveal the Roman lergy and hierarchy for the hypocrites they were becoming. Your quote here...

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

reveals the birth of the hierarchal system that fully developed into the papacy that lords it over man and claims even lordship over scripture.
But your church will in the end be destroyed, as will all the works of men, and all that shall remain is the works and the word of God.
6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

 

[Brakelite]

The easiest way to find out who founded your church is ask, who is my church like?

The Jews, even the disciples, had a misconception of Who Jesus was. Their picture of Messiah was this all conquering hero Who they would help to slaughter the Romans. John and James's mother even approached Jesus to arrange the furniture and seating arrangements the throne room.
Jesus said she had no idea what she was asking. Such a king, one that desired to conquer and use force to overcome hate and sin, was not the King that stood before her.
Which king/King was your church styled after? The church that sought by love and self sacrificing service brought the gospel to the nations...or the church that through coercion and politics and force of arms established authority and hierarchal subservience. So the question is a good one.
Which king founded your church?

 

[FHII]

If those 2 Apostles were baptized by John (which I believe they were) then would those baptisms count?

Well Jesus was also baptized by John... Did that one count?

The reason I ask is because in Acts 19 Paul re-baptized those that had been baptized by John.

I'm sorry to say this, but its a ridiculous question. But at least I can see why you are asking. No, the two disciples and Jesus didn't need to be rebaptized in water. They (the disciples) were actually rebaptized, but not with water.

Its not a bad question in another sense though.. There was a major difference between the disciples in Acts 19 and the two in John 1, and you missed it. But first, I have to address something else to get it out of the way:

Since they were already believers Paul pointed out that the only thing they were missing to become a full fledged Christian was water baptism

No... They got the water baptism when they were with John (if they were)! It was the same water baptism Andrew got, that the other disciple got and that Jesus got.

Let me show you the key thing you missed:

In vs 1 it says they were disciples and vs 2 says they were believers and then in vs 5 it says they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus even though they were already believers!!

Acts 19:2 KJV
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

They hadn't even heard there was a Holy Ghost. But what did John say?

John 1:33 KJV
....Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Two scenarios here:

1. They were followers of John who were baptized by water, but they didn't listen to anything he said! Thus, the water baptism profited them nothing!

2. They weren't direct disciples of John at all (Acts 19 says they were baptized with John's baptism, not that they were his students). That being said, they received the baptism but not the teaching that was important to it being effective. Thus, the water baptism profited them nothing!

So thats what was wrong with the "believers" in Ephesus. They were water baptized but totally ignorant as to what it meant and what was to come.

Contrast that to Andrew and the other disciple in John 1. John said (in the presence of the two disciples):

John 1:35-37 KJV
Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; [36] And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! [37] And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

Yes, I believe they were water baptised, but they also listened to John and then reacted with that knowledge. They heard John say when Jesus comes he must increase and I must decrease. They left John and followed Jesus.

That's the difference: they all had John's water baptism. But the two disciples actually received teaching and reacted to it. The group in Acts 19 either weren't paying attention to John or they were under a charlatan who didn't preach John's message properly.

The group in Acts 19 made out ok. Despite their lack of attention or bad teaching (whichever the case was) it was their willingness to receive the truth that led them.

 

[Illuminator]

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 – after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 – here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus’ baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM - Scripture Catholic

 

[theefaith]

Yes...LOL

If you think my little one liners are commentary, then I will spank you with sola scriptura until you beg for my one liners.

sola scriptura is condemned by the holy apostles in apostolic council
It rejects tradition or the teaching authority of Peter and the apostles and their successors
And is based on private interpretation and personal judgment of the reason which is part of fallen human nature
So naturally you get thousands of sects all teaching contradictions all claiming the Bible alone and the HS
Yet only the one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles has the unity of faith and the spirit of truth free from error

also from the Bible alone you CANNOT know what is and what is not the Bible!!!

only the church in the teaching authority of the apostles can say what is scripture and an authentic interpretation of scripture

 

[Truther]

sola scriptura is condemned by the holy apostles in apostolic council

also from the Bible alone you CANNOT know what is and what is not the Bible!!!

only the church in the teaching authority of the apostles can say what is scripture and an authentic interpretation of scripture

Huh?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Flesh does not inherit the Kingdom, therefore, you can eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Sorry, maybe try juice and crackers instead if you actually just want something to eat?

If you know your Bible - WHY would you even bother to say someting this silly?

Jesus didn't say . . .
John 6:53
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat crackers and drink juice, you have no life in you.

He said:
John 6:53-56
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is TRUE FOOD, and my blood is TRU DRINK. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

See the difference?
STUDY your Bible and you'll make less moronic statements . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Huh?

In other words - the Bible doesn't tell you which Books belong in it.
You had to learn this from the CHURCH. YOU didn't figure it out on your own . . .

 

[Truther]

In other words - the Bible doesn't tell you which Books belong in it.
You had to learn this from the CHURCH. YOU didn't figure it out on your own . . .

The compilation of the scriptures is not doctrinal commentary.

 

[theefaith]

Huh?

I don’t chew my cabbage twice, and you have not heard the last of Ernest T. Bass

 

[Truther]

I don’t chew my cabbage twice, and you have not heard the last of Ernest T. Bass

Enough of the rocks, Ernest T!

 

[BreadOfLife]

The compilation of the scriptures is not doctrinal commentary.

The compilation of the Scriptures cannot be determined by Sola Scriptura.
It can ONLY be determined by God-given Authority.

 

[theefaith]

Enough of the rocks, Ernest T!

shaved the back of my neck! Slickity!

 

[Truther]

The compilation of the Scriptures cannot be determined by Sola Scriptura.
It can ONLY be determined by God-given Authority.

Ihe compilation of scriptures is what it is.

It must be left alone and only obeyed.

Writing about it is not Biblical doctrine, but horse feathers.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Correct.
You are very observant!
Except, it did not yet reappear as wolves run it still.
It is still clawing it's way out of the RCC's wolf's lair.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it Einstein?
If this is correct - the PROVE it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ihe compilation of scriptures is what it is.
It must be left alone and only obeyed.
Writing about it is not Biblical doctrine, but horse feathers.

Another ignorant cop out.

There werre MANY Books that were considered to be Scripture prior to the Catholic Church's declaration in 383 AD about the official Canon.
They were weeded out by the God-given Authority of the Catholic Church - not ANY Protestant denomination or Lone Ranger renegade.

So YOU, as a Sola Scripturist adhere to a New Testament Canoon that was compiled and declared Canponical by the Catholic Church - the very Church you reject. WHY is that?

 

[Truther]

Well, that's the problem, isn't it Eainstein?
If this is correct - the PROVE it.

That's easy to prove.

The RCC invented the incarnation idea.(God becoming a sperm cell to mate with Mary).

Both protestants and oneness cannot shake the hook.

The great whore(RCC) that ruined the original, pure Christianity is an ecumenical powerhouse, which her mass deception is poisoning the reformers' minds.

The only way to shake her commentary hook is by going sola scriptura.