Who founded your church?

[Philip James]

..
Yes, I've done more than they, obviously, .

Wow, just wow..

 

[CharismaticLady]

Water Baptism, has no part in the Blood Atonement.
So, if you find that you belong to a water cult that has added water TO the Cross, as necessary for conversion, salvation, or eternal life, then you have been deceived.

Do you believe in obedience to being baptized in water, or not?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Dear Lady,

I am unable to figure out how or WHY you twisted what Eusebious wrote. I suspect some other man taught you this bizarre history that James was the head of The Church......You haven't provided any evidence of it...Just your opinion (or the opinion that was taught you by some man) soooooo I don't know what else to say.....

Wait....I do know what to say.....you need to rethink your allegiance.

I typed what was there. How can I twist it straight from the book?

And BTW, when I get an alert, I may answer that one alert and scroll down and read others, and may answer theirs before changing to another thread. So I'm not deliberately avoiding your posts, I just don't change threads. When I'm done with one thread, I look back at the alerts for someone else and it is in a different thread. I don't really care who posts first.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If Peter was the 1st Pope then why does the RCC reject Acts 2:38, their Pope's 1st command to sinners of what to do to be saved?

I think the RCC is just blowin' smoke.

Not sure what the "RCC" is - but the Catholic Church doesn't reject Acts 2:38.
We simply take it in CONTEXT with ALL of the other Scripture verses regarding Baptism.

Unlike YOU - we don't ignorantly isolate one single verse and build an entire doctrine around it - especially when there are so many other verses that put it in its proper context, my woefully ignorant friend.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Water Baptism, has no part in the Blood Atonement.
So, if you find that you belong to a water cult that has added water TO the Cross, as necessary for conversion, salvation, or eternal life, then you have been deceived.

Water Baptism is commanded by God - whether YOU approve of His prescription or not
(Ezek. 36:25-28, Matt. 28:19, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:1-7, Acts 22:16, Rom. 6: 3-4, Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:11-12, Eph. 4:5, Tit. 3:4-8, 1 Pet. 3:21).

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is BAPTIZED will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Good luck telling HIM He was wrong . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus said to "do this in remembrance of Me".... and that is what we are to do.
We are not, however, to make an idol out of the cookie and the juice.

Also, a certain religious organization teaches that their Priest's have "magic power" to literally turn a bag of cookies and fruit juice into the literal body and blood of Jesus, that you are to chew and swallow. This same water cult teaches that you are born again by the power of WATER.

God says you are born again by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I couldn't agree MORE with your statement above in RED.
NOW - show me an example of were "remembrance" means "just a symbol".

Jesus said:
"This IS my body" and, "This IS my blood" (Luke 22:19–20; Matt. 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; 1 Cor. 11:23–25).

He also said:
"For my flesh is TRUE FOOD and my blood is TRUE DRINK" (John 6:55).

He never said that they were "just symbols" . . .

 

[Marymog]

I typed what was there. How can I twist it straight from the book?

And BTW, when I get an alert, I may answer that one alert and scroll down and read others, and may answer theirs before changing to another thread. So I'm not deliberately avoiding your posts, I just don't change threads. When I'm done with one thread, I look back at the alerts for someone else and it is in a different thread. I don't really care who posts first.

Thank you. You did cut and paste what Eusebius wrote but nothing he wrote said James was the head of The Church. Only the head of the church (singular) in Jerusalem. If you were to read ALL of what Eusebious wrote you would see that he names The successors of James in Jerusalem and the other established churches. His goal was to give a historical account of the successors of those individual churches....Not say who was head of The Church.

Thank you for the clarification on alerts and how you handle them......

 

[Marymog]

The true church heads are not in Catholic history. Hmmmmm

Ummmm.....wrong again:

Chronological List of All Popes (Roman Catholic)

 

[Marymog]

No, that's not what I said. They were there from the beginning, they separated from no-one. Rather, it was Rome that separated from them.....

Rome separated from everyone else???? Hmmmmmm....Historically we know that Rome was recognized as the seat of The Church until the east-west schism in 1054AD and then there were more schisms in the 16th century soooooo what history book are you reading?

 

[Marymog]

My teaching comes from scripture and verifiable history. And the teachings of the reformers wasn't new. They were bringing back truths, and attempting to reform the church to is original condition and purity. Sadly they didn't go far enough. That work of reformation continues today, the reformation isn't over despite the declarations of Protestant and Catholic heretics

Oh...YOUR teaching comes from scripture but anyone that disagrees with your interpretation of scripture their teaching comes from ____________ (fill in the blank)

The reformers all disagreed with each other and sometimes agreed with The Church sooooooo your theory that they are going back to the original condition is not true. Sooooo when does the reforming of The Church end? When everyone agrees with you?? The further Christianity gets away from the teachings of The Church the closer they are to the Truth??? Fascinating....

Can you see how bankrupt your theory is?

 

[Marymog]

Prayerfully and carefully read Romans 6.....

That’s what i thought.....you provided YOUR interpretation of Romans 6 not what it actually says. That’s why you can’t provide an answer....

Or did someone teach you that interpretation???

 

[theefaith]

Per Romans 6, we are buried with Christ in baptism....correct.

Now, anyone that says they were made alive prior to water baptism was buried alive.

Acts 22:16 your sins are not really washed away only symbolic? Whatever your not really a Christian by baptism only symbolic! What planet are you from?
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

[DNB]

Wow, just wow..

Impressed, aren't you!

 

[Illuminator]

Protestant Traditions You Won't Find in the Bible | Catholic Answers

Protestant Distortions of the Church Fathers | Catholic Answers

 

[CharismaticLady]

Thank you. You did cut and paste what Eusebius wrote but nothing he wrote said James was the head of The Church. Only the head of the church (singular) in Jerusalem. If you were to read ALL of what Eusebious wrote you would see that he names The successors of James in Jerusalem and the other established churches. His goal was to give a historical account of the successors of those individual churches....Not say who was head of The Church.

Thank you for the clarification on alerts and how you handle them......

Sorry if you didn't understand what he meant.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Ummmm.....wrong again:

Chronological List of All Popes (Roman Catholic)

See what I mean? I have the same names in a different published list, and as you can see, none of the desposyni are mentioned.

 

[Brakelite]

That’s what i thought.....you provided YOUR interpretation of Romans 6 not what it actually says. That’s why you can’t provide an answer....

Or did someone teach you that interpretation???

You aren't serious surely. You believe that because I think the old man dies in Christ, meaning as the scripture says, "buried with Him by baptism in death"...that by applying that to the old man, is merely a personal interpretation and not in keeping with what scripture says? If it isn't the "old man"...the "first husband" of Romans 7'''then who????? Answer me Mary. Who died in Christ? You love to accuse others of interpretive theories etc, so how about an alternative? Did you prayerfully read and carefully read Romans 6???? No, you didn't did you. Because such a practice doesn't agree with Vatican and Papal commands. Read the Bible for doctrine?? Never. Go to the church yeah? There is the truth...not in scripture, no.
As for being baptised in public...show me one instance where anyone was baptised without someone else present. Whether family, servants, the church...whoever. They are our examples are they not?
What else could baptism possibly mean??????? other than a public declaration of death? and new life in Christ????? After all, that is what Paul is teaching...who taught you otherwise???????

 

[DNB]

I couldn't agree MORE with your statement above in RED.
NOW - show me an example of were "remembrance" means "just a symbol".

Jesus said:
"This IS my body" and, "This IS my blood" (Luke 22:19–20; Matt. 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; 1 Cor. 11:23–25).

He also said:
"For my flesh is TRUE FOOD and my blood is TRUE DRINK" (John 6:55).

He never said that they were "just symbols" . . .

What kind of hermeneutics do you employ in your exegesis, hyper-literalism? You are unaware of the different literary conventions used throughout the Bible - poetry, allegory, metaphors, parables, anthropomorphism, etc..? You have no discernment between when you hear a figure-of-speech or analogy, as opposed to an intended literal meaning? You have no wisdom to understand that catabolism does not edify, that what goes into the body and through the digestive system, has absolutely no efficacy in regard to one's mind and heart?

Jesus is currently a spirit in heaven 'like the angels', how in the world would he offer his temporal, carnal, deteriorating, and decayed, flesh as a sacrament to his church? What type of paganism are you professing?

 

[DNB]

Protestant Traditions You Won't Find in the Bible | Catholic Answers

Protestant Distortions of the Church Fathers | Catholic Answers

There is no one Church that can be defined or circumscribed by quantitative measures (denomination, building, hierarchy, etc..). The Church is currently invisible, there may be some Catholics, or Protestants, Eastern or Orthodox members within it. But, not all either Catholics, or Protestants, Eastern or Orthodox are saved.

I denounce Protestantism as it is defined in any of the creeds or statements of Faith (Westminster, Augsburg, Book of Concord, Synod of Dort, ..). As much as I do the Catholic definitions of the universal church (Council of Trent, Lateran Councils, Vatican I & II, ...).
No one's denomination will save them, for there are damnable heresies in all of the aforementioned divisions of Christ. Each man must come to Christ on his own, for God will not allow the pope to intervene on any of his congregants behalf, on Judgement Day. Nor, will Calvin or Luther have any say in the matter between God and Knox, or God and Spurgeon, God and Whitfield or the Wesleys. History has proven that there is no one definitive Church of Christ, all the man-made boundaries have fallen short in one creed, precept or tenet, or another.

The dogma and history of the Roman Catholic Church has clearly demonstrated that apostolic succession has never been the catalyst behind the formation of their institution. They same can be said for all other denominations throughout history, throughout the world. All men come to God depending on their faith and the grounds for it, no appeal will be allowed to be made to the denomination from which they came, as a means to justify their salvation.

 

[Behold]

Water Baptism is commanded by God - .

Concern yourself with what matters, vs, believing in what doesn't.