Who founded your church?

[BreadOfLife]

Exactly.

So the replacement for O.T. male circumcision is a N.T. spiritual heart surgery performed by God...not a ritual by RCC men performed on babies.

Wrong.
The Circumcision of Christ is Baptism, Einstein (Col. 2:11-12, Tit. 3:4-8, Gal. 3:27).

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are confusing denying the world, with hiding in a monastery. There is not one NT character that delineates what you are describing, you are entirely, and as usual, misconstruing half the passages that you quote.

You still don't get it because YOU have assigned all of the roles to the Body of Christ that YOU want there to be - leaving NO room for anybody else.
It's not up to YOU to assign WHO does WHAT within the Body of Christ. That's up to the Holy Spirit.

People who live an ascetic life don't "hide" from anything. They have decicated their entire lives to prayer and fasting for the good of the Body of Christ.
YOU can't grasp this because YOU don't have that kind of faith.

 

[Philip James]

No one was more engaged on the front-line than was Paul, that's my point. Have your moments of solitude in order to gain strength, then get out there on the battlefield, don't hide in a convent or monastery where your edification is wasted. No one lights a candle and then covers it with a blanket.

Hello DNB,

whatever might may you think that the religious 'cover their light with a blanket?' . Have you done more for the Body of Christ than they? Is their part somehow less than your part?
What is it about their spirituality (and there are many to choose from) that disturbs you so?

And just to get back to the OP, who founded your community?

Peace be with you!

 

[Brakelite]

Wrong.
The Circumcision of Christ is Baptism, Einstein (Col. 2:11-12, Tit. 3:4-8, Gal. 3:27).

Such is the classic Catholic view which mixes justification and sanctification. Heart circumcision is sanctification and it is the work of a life time. Baptism is a public declaration of the death of the 'old man' which is a decision voluntarily made by the Christian which is at conversion.

 

[DNB]

You still don't get it because YOU have assigned all of the roles to the Body of Christ that YOU want there to be - leaving NO room for anybody else.
It's not up to YOU to assign WHO does WHAT within the Body of Christ. That's up to the Holy Spirit.

People who live an ascetic life don't "hide" from anything. They have decicated their entire lives to prayer and fasting for the good of the Body of Christ.
YOU can't grasp this because YOU don't have that kind of faith.

How in the flippin' world does fasting and praying in a God-forbidden monastery, have any efficacy for the body of Christ?
Half of the adherents to which these monks belong, aren't even aware of their existence. If their writings have reached the outside world, that's one thing. But praying and fasting in isolation, does nothing but leave more food for the next guy?

 

[DNB]

Hello DNB,

whatever might may you think that the religious 'cover their light with a blanket?' . Have you done more for the Body of Christ than they? Is their part somehow less than your part?
What is it about their spirituality (and there are many to choose from) that disturbs you so?

And just to get back to the OP, who founded your community?

Peace be with you!

...because they are anonymous and unseen, they have no impact, ...even God wants them to go out and spread their wings to others, but they won't.
Yes, I've done more than they, obviously, as my presence on this forum is a proclamation of what I believe and why - who knows what they believe, or even their names. And, everywhere I go, at work or with family and friends, all that I meet usually become quickly aware of my convictions about life and God. I cannot say the same about people that the world has never seen or heard of.

If they chose to be authors and disseminate their works, that's great. But living a life of austerity, fasting and prayer in isolation, so that no one can witness or benefit from what insights they have allegedly gained, is nothing but a vain and purposeless waste of 'devotion' and 'edification'.

 

[marksman]

The entire concept of baptism is destroyed by the baptising of infants.
Baptism, at it's core, means a voluntary death at the hands of another. It is an open and public confession of faith in a previously made decision and voluntary belief in and acceptance of the gospel. This is the cross we are called to take up. Of course this is a spiritual death...a mental assent to allowing God to include us in the death of Christ and surrendering body, soul and Spirit to God that He may raise us up in Christ, born again of the Spirit of God empowered to obey and walk with Him all the days of our lives.
Baptism is also a voluntary and public admission to a community of faith... To whatever community we may so choose.

We are not converted at baptism... But our conversion is publicly affirmed and confirmed and accepted by God at baptism... As it was with Christ in the river Jordan. Christ was already born again, but "fulfilled all righteousness" by allowing John to Baptist Him... Prefiguring calvary and the Resurrection. This, an infant cannot do. This, sprinkling cannot demonstrate.

Great stuff!!

 

[marksman]

It’s in the didache early teaching of the apostles acts 2:42

No one in the New Testament Church baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

 

[marksman]

LOL, I don't know of such either, although such a practice, at least in symbolism, would not be beyond the scope of the imagination in occult circles. Which I believe much of what passes for the Catholic form of Christianity stems from. And yes, it would be creepy. Yet isn't much of the ritualism we currently have in the church, at least to the eyes and ears of the uninitiated, creepy? View attachment 13202

Baptism by immersion was prevelent amongs cults and false religions. it was used by them to indicate your total involvment in the movement and withiout it you were not considered a full memebr of the sect/cult.

It is just as important to believers as an indication of their commitment. Salvation clothes you with the new man and baptism gets rid of the old man.

 

[Truther]

Wrong.
The Circumcision of Christ is Baptism, Einstein (Col. 2:11-12, Tit. 3:4-8, Gal. 3:27).

No, N.T. circumcision is a divine heart surgery.

RCC priests are not qualified to do divine heart surgeries on newborns.

As a matter of fact, the newborns just get ticked off worse when the RCC is done wetting them down.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, N.T. circumcision is a divine heart surgery.
RCC priests are not qualified to do divine heart surgeries on newborns.
As a matter of fact, the newborns just get ticked off worse when the RCC is done wetting them down.

Thank you for another idiotic response.
You never disappoint . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

How in the flippin' world does fasting and praying in a God-forbidden monastery, have any efficacy for the body of Christ?
Half of the adherents to which these monks belong, aren't even aware of their existence. If their writings have reached the outside world, that's one thing. But praying and fasting in isolation, does nothing but leave more food for the next guy?

How does praying and fasting benefit the Body of Christ (2 Sam. 1:12, Esth. 4:16, Luke 2:37, Luke 4:2-4, Acts 13:2-4, Acts 14:23)??

Are you serious - or are you just being puposely obtuse?

 

[Truther]

Thank you for another idiotic response.
You never disappoint . . .

Does the pope do circumcision of the heart too?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Such is the classic Catholic view which mixes justification and sanctification. Heart circumcision is sanctification and it is the work of a life time. Baptism is a public declaration of the death of the 'old man' which is a decision voluntarily made by the Christian which is at conversion.

And yet NONE of you has been able to dance your way around the fact that Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit describes Baptism as the fulfillment of Circumcision (Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:11-12, Tit. 3:4-8).

Ciurcumcision was entry into the Covenant - just a Baptism is entry into the NEW Covenant.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Does the pope do circumcision of the heart too?

Like I said before - your idiotic responses never disappoint . . .

 

[Marymog]

No, you did not. It was a diversion, and again, hardly subtle. You cannot defend the faults of one institution by pointing out the faults of another. Yes, some of the Protestant reformers persecuted one another. And yes, they also persecuted Catholics, particularly in Britain because they feared a Catholic takeover of Britain and the subsequent loss of religious liberty... Ironic wasn't it... The liberty they wanted for themselves they weren't willing to grant Catholics. Such a courageous stand didn't come till Protestants were established in the new world and formed a constitution and bill of rights... With the help of one or two Catholics.
But back to Constantine. I wasn't alluding so much to him directly, although he certainly has a role to play in the advancement of heretical doctrines such as the Trinity and Sunday sacredness. No, what I was thinking of was when Constantine abandoned Rome altogether leaving a vacuum in political power that was filled first by the Ostrogoths but eventually, in the 6th century, by the Popes themselves. Under the decree of the emperor Justinian in 538ad, the Pope assumed civil power and authority as well as spiritual authority. Thus was fulfilled the prophecy of Revelation 13 which stated "the dragon (pagan Rome) gave him (the Antichrist) his power, his seat (throne) and great authority". That civil power was removed exactly 1260 years later by the revolutionary army of Napoleon under general Berthier. in 1798.
Popes, such as Gregory and Innocent for examples, from that time, the 6th century, forth went about confirming and establishing that Authority by persecuting numberless Christian communities as well as non Christian, particularly those who disagree with her doctrines and political authority. The church used the Kings, the princes and the rulers of this world to carry out her persecutions, yet her bishops and priests were most certainly standing by giving the orders and relaying the Pope's commands, bulls, and censures of they did not conform quickly enough or with the appropriate cruelty and aggression. Those opponents were, in the eyes of Rome, so called and designated heretics, this seeming to justify their destruction. However, the truth isn't what it always seems. Were they truly heretics? We only have Rome's word for that, and a few snippets of history that suggests that these people were using scripture for the basis of their faith and repudiated the traditions of Rome, who over the centuries brought in unbiblical innovations and superstitions that common sense and scripture denied. So yes, who were these people who held to scripture and not tradition? The Waldenses. The Albigenses. The churches that were spread far and wide all over the east, from Assyria to China. The Celtic church in Britain. The churches in Ethiopia and India. And yes, they had the scriptures. Not those from the hands of Jerome and the gnostics of Alexandria, but the Syraic peshita and those translated by such as Lucian and the disciples of the Waldenses and such as later saints all over the world, all of which existed long before Rome cared to send missionaries anywhere.
These were the fruits of the missionary endeavors of the Apostles and their immediate descendants, and the work of the disciples they made. Rome, and it's so called Catholic Church, was not the only shop in town. Even in it's very own doorstep in Milan and Turin, there were churches who refused to surrender their people to Roman heresy and tradition.
The remains of those churches still exist in the histories of those Nations in which they dwelt, and in the histories of the Vatican archives that recorded their destruction. And it wasn't only Rome that opposed them. Sand destroyed their cities in the east, along with Zoroaster, Tamerlane, the Vikings in the north, numerous others.

None of the above is theory Mary. It's just a perspective of history that the Roman church would rather not become known, and that it certainly doesn't teach in its own seminaries, universities, or schools. Those who have written of these people are themselves denigrated by Rome and are accused themselves of lying and of heresy. Of being "anti Catholic" and in today's idiom, guilty of spreading hate speech. A post such as this, that tells the truth, may in the near future become illegal... If it isn't already.
There are some excellent books that give some exhaustive and exhilarating detail of the lives and trials these people endured, but also of the wonderful victories they won in the name of Christ for the kingdom of God. Not using force of arms or coercion as did Rome, but the simple message of the gospel. I suggest you look them up.

Thank you for that brief summary of Christian History.

As you pointed out there were many men who separated from The Church over the centuries to start their own churches with various doctrines, beliefs, practices etc.! The Church, to their discredit, used force in an attempt to stop some of those men from teaching heretical doctrines. The Church tried to keep Christians all One with One faith One doctrine One teaching One baptism etc. Isn't that what Jesus wanted? How do we obtain what Jesus wanted Backlit? Should we adhere to the Protestant teaching that any man at any time can say I disagree with The Church and decide I'm starting my own church which will have the truth? That's called a revolution which in the past has been called a Reformation. Funny thing is when you Protestants started reforming or revolting from each other they called the men who were revolting from the Protesant churches/teachings heretics . For Protestants it was OK to call the men that wanted a reformation of their own teaching HERETICS....but if The Church calls anyone a heretic it can't be true. WEIRD....you Protestants can call the 2,000 teachings of The Church heretical (some even call it from satan) but if I call your 500 year teaching.....of which you all teach a different thing from the same passage (which is a bizarre thing for discussion on another thread)..... heretical what am i Backlit????? Misguided? Brainwashed???

I did not intend to "defend the faults of one institution by pointing out the faults of another". MULTIPLE TIMES in the past I have acknowledged the faults of The Church and pointed out how The Church has apologized for those past faults. YOU jumped in on a conversation between Behold and me to mention, out of context, those that "we're persecuted by the Roman church for their troubles". That is why I asked you the question "Protestants didn't persecute anyone?" I was not defending the faults of The Church.....I was addressing your lack fairness from YOUR INTERJECTION into my conversation with someone else. With that said, I don't mind that you interjected. What I mind is your one sided bias and your suggestion that I was creating a diversion when I DIRECTLY ADDRESSED YOU AND YOUR POST.

I enjoyed most of your post until you started giving your opinion and saying bizarre things such as this: "It's just a perspective of history that the Roman church would rather not become known, and that it certainly doesn't teach in its own seminaries, universities, or schools. Those who have written of these people are themselves denigrated by Rome and are accused themselves of lying and of heresy. Of being "anti Catholic" and in today's idiom, guilty of spreading hate speech. A post such as this, that tells the truth, may in the near future become illegal... If it isn't already."

None the less....I now better see your point of view on things.....Thank You!

 

[Truther]

Like I said before - your idiotic responses never disappoint . . .

Thanks.

What school did you attend or the RCC priests attend to learn to circumcise infants' hearts ?

 

[Marymog]

Not only does Acts 15 show that the leader of the Church was James, the brother of Jesus in Acts 15, but Eusebius, the early church historian does also. After his death, James was succeeded by Symeon, another relative of Jesus. The Church was always headed by a Desposyni, a relative of Jesus, not one of the apostles.

"After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive assembled from all parts together with those who, humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord - for most of them were still living. Then they all discussed together who they should choose as a fit person to succeed James, and voted unanimously that Symeon, son of the Clopas mentioned in the gospel narrative, was a fit person to occupy the throne of the Jerusalem see. He was, so it is said, a cousin of the Saviour, for Hegesippus tells us that Clopas was Joseph's brother.

Under the reign of Domitian, the same emperor ordered the execution of all who were of David's line, and there is an old and firm tradition tat a group of heetics accused the descendants of Jude - the brother, humanly speaking, of the Saviour - on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ Himself. This is stated by Hegesippus in so many words:

And there still survived of the Lord's family the grandsons of Jude, who was said to be His brother, humanly speaking. These were informed against as being of David's line, and brought by the evocatus before Domitian Caesar, who was as afraid of the advent of Christ as Herod had been. Domitian asked them whether they were descended from David, and they admitted it. Then he asked them what property they owned and what funds they had at their disposal. They replied that they had only 9,000 denarii between them, half belonging to each; this, they said, was not available in cash, but was the estimated value of only thirty-nine plethora of land, from which they raised the money to pay their taxes and wherewithal to support themselves by their own toil.

Then, the writer continues, they showed him their hands putting forward as proof of their toil the hardness of their bodies and the calluses impressed on their hands by incessant labour. When asked about Christ and His Kingdom - what it was like, and where and when it would appear - they explained that it was not of this world or anywhere on earth, but angelic and in heaven, and would be established at the end of the world, when He would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead and give every man payment according to his conduct. On hearing this, Domitian found no fault with them, but despising them as beneath his notice let them go free and issued orders terminating the persecution of the Church. On their release they became leaders of the churches, both because they had borne testimony and because they were of the Lord's family; and thanks to the establishment of peace they lived on into Trajan's time. So must we learn from Hegesippus."

Eusebius describes Peter as the leader amoung the disciples of Jesus and the principal apostle.

So as you can see Peter was the head apostle, but the Desposyni were the heads of the whole Church.

Thanks....At the end of your post you say that "Eusebius describes Peter as the leader amoung the disciples of Jesus and the principal apostle". But at the beginning of your post and in your previous post you seem to be making a defense for James being the leader among the disciples and principle Apostles soooo I am a bit confused!!!

Also there was only one question I asked you to answer and I can't find the answer in your response sooooo I will ask it again: At the Council of Jerusalem who is the one who made the authoritative statement We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [the Gentiles] will”.

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Refusing to answer? Oh, please! I haven't been home.

Ummmmm.....OK.....you do know there is a search option on this website and I can search what you posted and how often you posted???? Sooooooo I am wondering how you were able to post something everyday to everyone else but me if you haven't been home??? I ain't mad at ya'....I'm just curious.....

Curious...Mary

 

[Marymog]

I've said a great deal many things Mary Mog, you are isolating one principle that I have stated, away from its related and contingent principle.

More words from you but no answer.....

Soooooo the answer is?????????