Searching For Truth Seekers!

[Wansvic]

Getting the rite right is problematic, and so is getting the right belief, but God knows the heart.

Corrupting what is clearly revealed in the word is not just problematic. According to Jesus Himself, man-made traditions have the ability to make the word of God of none effect. The principle is expressed in Matthew 15:

"But he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt 15:3-9

 

[GWH]

When the third chapter of the Book of John is taken in context it sheds much light. The account begins with Jesus explaining everyone must be born again. (side note, being born involves coming out of water) The account then continues to verse 16 where it says those who believe in Jesus SHOULD not perish, and concludes with Jesus traveling with His disciples as they administer water baptisms. I don't believe it is a coincidence that water baptism is brought up immediately after Jesus discussing the necessity of being reborn. Do you?

You know that I don’t think it is a coincidence that John 3:16 does NOT say “whosoever believes in him AND is baptized”. Neither do most Protestants but I guess your denomination is more like Catholics in that regard, since they also view baptism as a sacrament.

 

[GWH]

Corrupting what is clearly revealed in the word is not just problematic. According to Jesus Himself, man-made traditions have the ability to make the word of God of none effect. The principle is expressed in Matthew 15:

"But he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt 15:3-9

Well, making of none effect is most problematic!

 

[Wansvic]

You know that I don’t think it is a coincidence that John 3:16 does NOT say “whosoever believes in him AND is baptized”. Neither do most Protestants but I guess your denomination is more like Catholics in that regard, since they also view baptism as a sacrament.

Individual scriptures do not list every detail associated with the NT rebirth or any other topic for that matter. If they did the bible would be huge.

Although John 3:16 does not specifically mention repentance, (Luke 13:3) or being filled with the Holy Ghost, (Rom. 8:9) both are necessary in order to gain entrance into the kingdom of God.

 

[Wansvic]

You know that I don’t think it is a coincidence that John 3:16 does NOT say “whosoever believes in him AND is baptized”. Neither do most Protestants but I guess your denomination is more like Catholics in that regard, since they also view baptism as a sacrament.

Denominational beliefs play no part in the points being made. The points referenced come directly from the word of God.

"The account begins with Jesus explaining everyone must be born again. (side note, being born involves coming out of water) The account then continues to verse 16 where it says those who believe in Jesus SHOULD not perish, and concludes with Jesus traveling with His disciples as they administer water baptisms. I don't believe it is a coincidence that water baptism is brought up immediately after Jesus discussing the necessity of being reborn." John 3

 

[Wansvic]

Well, making of none effect is most problematic!

I am not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to get you to actually look at and take seriously what is revealed in scripture.

Note: the definition of vain; producing no result; useless.

Verse 9 below indicates following man-made tradition produces no result. As such, one can conclude that to opt to bypass what the bible reveals concerning how to be baptized and obey a man-made tradition would produce no result. The result being to have one's sins remitted. "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin..."

My comment:
"Corrupting what is clearly revealed in the word is not just problematic. According to Jesus Himself, man-made traditions have the ability to make the word of God of none effect. The principle is expressed in Matthew 15:

"But he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt 15:3-9

 

[decipher]

@decipher, Another Catholic Mistake should be added to the list: Removal of the name above all names; Jesus

The forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church instituted a man-made tradition concerning water baptism. Per Jesus' instruction, the apostles administered water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION—Vol 2, pages 377, 378, 389. (Note: Justin Martyr was Catholic)
“The Christian baptism was administered using the name of Jesus. The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history, Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr, when the trinity formula was used.
Volume 2, page 377, commenting on Acts 2:38, “Name was an ancient synonym for person. Payment was always made in the name of some person, referring to ownership, therefore, one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property, (“Ye are Christ’s I Corinthians 3:23.)

HARPER’S BIBLE DICTIONARY—1952 Edition, page 60
“Though the trinitarian formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind, Christ did become the vital content of all Christian baptism after the resurrection (Acts 8:16, 10:48).”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 8
“Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost”

“With regard to the form used for baptism in the early Church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew 28:19 seems to speaks of the Trinitarian formula which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13, 6:11, Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3) speak only of baptism “in the Name of Jesus.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1967 edition, volume 2, pages 56, 59.
“An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of baptism cannot be found in the first centuries.”


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1913 EDITION.
“There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty.
Thus St Paul (Acts 19 commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s Name: “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
In Acts 10 we read that St Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Those who were converted by Philip (Acts 8 “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.” (Acts 2:38)

THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA—Volume 1 pages 392, 393, 396.
“the formula of Christian baptism, in the mode which prevailed, is given in Matthew 28:19, ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’
But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian baptism UNTIL THE TIME OF JUSTIN MARTYR; and there, they are not repeated exactly, but in a slightly extended and explanatory form.

In every account of the performance of the rite in Apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use.
The 3,000 believers were baptized on the Day of Pentecost “in the Name of Jesus” (Acts 2:38), and the same formula was used at the baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him (Acts 10:48).

Indeed it would appear to have been the usual one, from St Paul’s question to the Corinthians: “Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?” (I Corinthians 1:13).

The Samaritans were baptized “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16); and the same formula was used in the case of the disciples at Ephesus. (Acts 19:1-5)

Others think that the full formula was always used and that narratives in the book of Acts and in the Pauline Epistles are merely brief summaries of what took place; an idea rather difficult to believe in the absence of any single reference to the longer formula.

The evidence to show that the formula given by St Matthew became the established usage is overwhelming; but it is more than likely that the use of the shorter formula did not altogether die out, or, if it did, that it was revived.

The historian Socrates informs us that some of the more extreme Arians “corrected” baptism by using the Name of Christ only in the formula. “The practice of using the shorter formula existed in the 5th. and 6th. Centuries, at all events in the East”

Page 396. “No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts of the Epistles of the Apostles. The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the Day of Pentecost are administered “in the Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), “into the name of the Lord Jesus”(8:16), “into Christ” (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27). This difficulty was considered by the Fathers.”

Thank you so much for all this information. I wasn't aware that the formula for baptism had been changed by Justin Martyr. Notice also that in Acts 2: 38 Peter said that when you repent and get baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Notice that in Acts 10: 44, that while Peter was speaking about Jesus, the Holy Spirit fell on all of them. That means that they already got baptized in the name of Jesus through Peter's preaching. In Acts 10: 48, Peter states," Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" . In Acts 8: 26-40, when Philip explained the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch, the eunuch believed and when they came unto a certain water, the eunuch asked, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?", and Philip baptized him with water. Why did Peter, Philip, and the eunuch all pushed for water baptism? The reason is because they were all Jews. The eunuch traveled from Ethiopia to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple. So he was a Jew and water baptism was a Jewish tradition tradition that all Jews made a part of their lives. That is why so many Jews around the Jordan River went to John's baptism. The purpose of water baptism was for spiritual cleansing. They water baptized before marriage, before taking a long trip, when initiating a new religious or secular position, or when cleansing themselves from sin, bodily discharges, contact with a dead body, cleansing of objects that are ritually unclean, etc. The first Christians were Jews. They at first wanted to circumcize new Gentile Christians but the first Christian leader after Christ's ascension, James, decided not to bother Christian Gentiles with that Jewish custom. They didn't think about water baptism probably because it wasn't as painful, even though John the Baptist said that he baptized with water, but someone else is going to baptize with a different medium, the Holy Spirit.

 

[decipher]

Catholic Mistake #19
The Catholic Church and the Immaculate Conception
Many people confuse the immaculate conception with the virgin birth of Jesus. They are not the same. The immaculate conception means that Mary was born free from the original sin or sinless. Catholics believe that Mary was sinless her entire life. So when was this concept made official by the RCC? Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the immaculate conception in the year 1854. Here it is from the catechism 491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, full of grace through God, was redeemed from the moment of conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. 508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103); from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life. So it couldn't be more clear that the RCC teaches that Mary was sinless her entire life. Let's see what the Bible says about this. Luke 1: 46-47 (KJV) And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Why would Mary need a saviour? Only sinners need a saviour. Mary is admitting that her soul needs saving, yet the catholics won't accept this. So yes, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. Let's see what else the Bible says. Romans 3: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 1 John 1: 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And we know the bible is perfectly clear that Jesus Christ was the only sinless person who ever walked on this earth. 1 John 3: 5 And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Hebrews 4: 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. It appears that the RCC is trying to put Mary up on a pedestal making her equal to Jesus by saying she has no sin. Mary being the immaculate conception and being sinless is a man-made tradition of the RCC that is found nowhere in the Bible.

 

[Ouch]

Getting the rite right is problematic, and so is getting the right belief, but God knows the heart.

He does know our hearts, and we will be judged for every word out of our mouth and our actions of obedience to HIS word.

GOD knew Uzzah's heart and SMOTE him.

2 Samuel 6:6-7
King James Version
6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.

7 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.



What is problematic is not following HIS word and putting your words in place of HIS.

John 3:16
King James Version
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It's up to us, if we believe in HIM of course not just HIM but if we believe every word that came out of HIS mouth we SHOULD not perish.

WHICH lines up with this verse!

Mark 16:16
King James Version
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If you don't believe in HIM or HIS words you will not obey and be baptized in JESUS name to get rid of your sins and you shall be damned.

That is JESUS speaking do you believe HIM???

 

[decipher]

Catholic Mistake #20
The RCC and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The concept of Mary being a forever virgin once again puts her up on a pedestal and glorifies her for something she is not. This teaching is also known as ever virgin. It teaches that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ. This doctrine proclaims that Mary had no marital relations after Jesus' birth nor gave birth to any children other than Jesus. Here is the teaching from the catechism. 499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it. And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the Ever-Virgin. In contrast here is what the Bible says: Matt 1: 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When, as his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Matt 1: 24-25 Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife. And knew her not (no sexual relation) till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name Jesus. First-born son implies that there were other sons afterwards. If Jesus was Mary's only son, shouldn't it have said only son and not first-born son? Matt 13: 55-56 (KJV) Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?Catholics will deny this and say that the word brethren actually means cousins. To clarify this, since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the word for brethren or brothers in Greek is adelphoi which is the word used in Matt 13: 55-56. In Colossians 4: 10 (NKV) Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas ( about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him), we see the word cousin is used. What is the Greek word for cousin? Anepsios. The RCC has made a major mistake by thinking that these are Mary's cousins instead of her own children. Mary being the perpetual virgin and having no other children besides Jesus is a man-made tradition of the RCC that is found nowhere in the Bible.

 

[Ouch]

Thank you so much for all this information. I wasn't aware that the formula for baptism had been changed by Justin Martyr. Notice also that in Acts 2: 38 Peter said that when you repent and get baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Notice that in Acts 10: 44, that while Peter was speaking about Jesus, the Holy Spirit fell on all of them. That means that they already got baptized in the name of Jesus through Peter's preaching. In Acts 10: 48, Peter states," Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" . In Acts 8: 26-40, when Philip explained the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch, the eunuch believed and when they came unto a certain water, the eunuch asked, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?", and Philip baptized him with water. Why did Peter, Philip, and the eunuch all pushed for water baptism? The reason is because they were all Jews. The eunuch traveled from Ethiopia to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple. So he was a Jew and water baptism was a Jewish tradition tradition that all Jews made a part of their lives. That is why so many Jews around the Jordan River went to John's baptism. The purpose of water baptism was for spiritual cleansing. They water baptized before marriage, before taking a long trip, when initiating a new religious or secular position, or when cleansing themselves from sin, bodily discharges, contact with a dead body, cleansing of objects that are ritually unclean, etc. The first Christians were Jews. They at first wanted to circumcize new Gentile Christians but the first Christian leader after Christ's ascension, James, decided not to bother Christian Gentiles with that Jewish custom. They didn't think about water baptism probably because it wasn't as painful, even though John the Baptist said that he baptized with water, but someone else is going to baptize with a different medium, the Holy Spirit.

I don't understand?

"Acts 2: 38 Peter said that when you repent and get baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That means that they already got baptized in the name of Jesus through Peter's preaching."

When Peters message is very clear why would you imply,

1. Peters messaged didn't mean what it said.

And why would you say,

2. What it means is they already got baptized in the name of Jesus through Peter's preaching?

How does someone get baptized for remission of sins while listening to someone speak?


Concerning the eunuch, he was questing Phillip and said how can I learn without a preacher and Phillip told him about JESUS.

In Acts 8:34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

Do to the eunuch believing what Phillip said he wanted to get baptized nothing to do with Jewish tradition.

 

[GWH]

Individual scriptures do not list every detail associated with the NT rebirth or any other topic for that matter. If they did the bible would be huge.

Although John 3:16 does not specifically mention repentance, (Luke 13:3) or being filled with the Holy Ghost, (Rom. 8:9) both are necessary in order to gain entrance into the kingdom of God.

Saving faith implies or means repentance which coincides with receiving the Holy Spirit and is professed via verbal confession and water baptism.

 

[GWH]

He does know our hearts, and we will be judged for every word out of our mouth and our actions of obedience to HIS word.

GOD knew Uzzah's heart and SMOTE him.

2 Samuel 6:6-7
King James Version
6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.

7 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.



What is problematic is not following HIS word and putting your words in place of HIS.

John 3:16
King James Version
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It's up to us, if we believe in HIM of course not just HIM but if we believe every word that came out of HIS mouth we SHOULD not perish.

WHICH lines up with this verse!

Mark 16:16
King James Version
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If you don't believe in HIM or HIS words you will not obey and be baptized in JESUS name to get rid of your sins and you shall be damned.

That is JESUS speaking do you believe HIM???

I still bet that my understanding of GRFS is better than yours and I don’t quarrel.

 

[Wansvic]

Thank you so much for all this information. I wasn't aware that the formula for baptism had been changed by Justin Martyr. Notice also that in Acts 2: 38 Peter said that when you repent and get baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Notice that in Acts 10: 44, that while Peter was speaking about Jesus, the Holy Spirit fell on all of them. That means that they already got baptized in the name of Jesus through Peter's preaching. In Acts 10: 48, Peter states," Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" . In Acts 8: 26-40, when Philip explained the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch, the eunuch believed and when they came unto a certain water, the eunuch asked, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?", and Philip baptized him with water. Why did Peter, Philip, and the eunuch all pushed for water baptism? The reason is because they were all Jews. The eunuch traveled from Ethiopia to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple. So he was a Jew and water baptism was a Jewish tradition tradition that all Jews made a part of their lives. That is why so many Jews around the Jordan River went to John's baptism. The purpose of water baptism was for spiritual cleansing. They water baptized before marriage, before taking a long trip, when initiating a new religious or secular position, or when cleansing themselves from sin, bodily discharges, contact with a dead body, cleansing of objects that are ritually unclean, etc. The first Christians were Jews. They at first wanted to circumcize new Gentile Christians but the first Christian leader after Christ's ascension, James, decided not to bother Christian Gentiles with that Jewish custom. They didn't think about water baptism probably because it wasn't as painful, even though John the Baptist said that he baptized with water, but someone else is going to baptize with a different medium, the Holy Spirit.

You are very welcome.

And please consider the following:
The OT cleansing rituals differed from what John the Baptist preached. He preached a baptism of repentance for remission of sin. The water baptism John preached was later modified to include the name of Jesus in association with His death, burial and resurrection. Jesus prophesied about this in Luke 24:47. He said repentance and remission of sin would be preached in his name in all nations beginning in Jerusalem. This began in Jerusalem just as Jesus said it would when Peter preached repentance, and baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. The message was then carried to those of other nations, and continues even unto today.

A study of the detailed accounts reveals baptism in the name of Jesus is actually a reference to water baptism. I think many overlook this truth because the phrase, "baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" is so often associated with water baptism due to the RCC distortion made so long ago.

I've included the accounts below for your review. Note they all include people believing in Jesus, and reference two separate experiences; water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin and receiving the Holy Ghost.

Acts 10:43-48 (Gentiles -The account is specific. It points directly to baptism in the name of Jesus being water baptism not something that occurs upon belief in Jesus-see verses 47 & 48)
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..."

Acts 2:38-39 (Jews -The group did not receive the Holy Ghost the moment they believed in Jesus. However, they were told they could expect to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost)
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12-17 (Samaritans-half Jewish-half Gentile)
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.


Acts 19:2-7 (Mix of Jew and Gentile disciples who did not realize they had to water baptized in Jesus name)
"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.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Acts 22:14-16 (Paul's water baptism)
And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[Ouch]

I still bet that my understanding of GRFS is better than yours and I don’t quarrel.

You will not accept HIS word on how to be reborn, which is between you and HIM.

The only thing you understand your oppinon.

I was just sharing scripture I notice you did not respond to that just like what happens when a person (WHICH IS A PART OF BEING REBORN) is filled with the Holy Ghost.

That's why I say best of luck, your hard as a rock and your eyes are sewed shut.

Since you also don't believe HIS word on being created in 7 days I bet you think we came from monkeys?

 

[decipher]

I don't understand?

"Acts 2: 38 Peter said that when you repent and get baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That means that they already got baptized in the name of Jesus through Peter's preaching."

When Peters message is very clear why would you imply,

1. Peters messaged didn't mean what it said.

And why would you say,

2. What it means is they already got baptized in the name of Jesus through Peter's preaching?

How does someone get baptized for remission of sins while listening to someone speak?


Concerning the eunuch, he was questing Phillip and said how can I learn without a preacher and Phillip told him about JESUS.

In Acts 8:34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

Do to the eunuch believing what Phillip said he wanted to get baptized nothing to do with Jewish tradition.

I was responding to Wansvic's post.

Catholic Mistake #20
The RCC and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The concept of Mary being a forever virgin once again puts her up on a pedestal and glorifies her for something she is not. This teaching is also known as ever virgin. It teaches that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ. This doctrine proclaims that Mary had no marital relations after Jesus' birth nor gave birth to any children other than Jesus. Here is the teaching from the catechism. 499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it. And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the Ever-Virgin. In contrast here is what the Bible says: Matt 1: 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When, as his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Matt 1: 24-25 Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife. And knew her not (no sexual relation) till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name Jesus. First-born son implies that there were other sons afterwards. If Jesus was Mary's only son, shouldn't it have said only son and not first-born son? Matt 13: 55-56 (KJV) Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?Catholics will deny this and say that the word brethren actually means cousins. To clarify this, since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the word for brethren or brothers in Greek is adelphoi which is the word used in Matt 13: 55-56. In Colossians 4: 10 (NKV) Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas ( about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him), we see the word cousin is used. What is the Greek word for cousin? Anepsios. The RCC has made a major mistake by thinking that these are Mary's cousins instead of her own children. Mary being the perpetual virgin and having no other children besides Jesus is a man-made tradition of the RCC that is found nowhere in the Bible.

Catholic Mistake # 21
The RCC and Priest Celibacy
Late in the 11th century, pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages. In the 12th century at the second Lateran Council held in 1139, a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy for priests not being able to marry. So the question is is it biblical for priests to be married or not? Let's see if there are great men in the Bible that were married. Noah was married, Abraham was married, Moses was married, Job was also married, even Peter, the rock that the RCC is supposed to be founded on, he was married. Matt 8: 14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying, and sick of a fever. The bible even explains that a bishop is supposed to have a wife. 1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; The RCC is going against the traditions of the Bible and do you know who suffers the most from this? The kids suffer the most from this. In a report by Hannah Roberts published 7/13/2014 Pope Francis has revealed that 1 in 50 priests is a paedophile and that child abuse is "leprosy" infecting the Catholic Church. God gave men testosterone and a strong libido. In the natural, this is supposed to be used with your wife.The sad part is when the catholic church prohibits men from releasing this testosterone. It's unnatural. The result is a database of catholic priests who have been accused of sexually abusing underage kids. Priests being celibate is only a tradition not a catholic dogma. So the pope could change it anytime he wanted to. So come on pope Frances. Give us a thumbs up to abolish the non-biblical tradition of priests not being able to get married. Then all of these miserable priests can release this testosterone in a natural way with their new wives instead of in an unnatural way with little children.

 

[Ouch]

I was responding to Wansvic's post.


Catholic Mistake # 21
The RCC and Priest Celibacy
Late in the 11th century, pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages. In the 12th century at the second Lateran Council held in 1139, a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy for priests not being able to marry. So the question is is it biblical for priests to be married or not? Let's see if there are great men in the Bible that were married. Noah was married, Abraham was married, Moses was married, Job was also married, even Peter, the rock that the RCC is supposed to be founded on, he was married. Matt 8: 14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying, and sick of a fever. The bible even explains that a bishop is supposed to have a wife. 1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; The RCC is going against the traditions of the Bible and do you know who suffers the most from this? The kids suffer the most from this. In a report by Hannah Roberts published 7/13/2014 Pope Francis has revealed that 1 in 50 priests is a paedophile and that child abuse is "leprosy" infecting the Catholic Church. God gave men testosterone and a strong libido. In the natural, this is supposed to be used with your wife.The sad part is when the catholic church prohibits men from releasing this testosterone. It's unnatural. The result is a database of catholic priests who have been accused of sexually abusing underage kids. Priests being celibate is only a tradition not a catholic dogma. So the pope could change it anytime he wanted to. So come on pope Frances. Give us a thumbs up to abolish the non-biblical tradition of priests not being able to get married. Then all of these miserable priests can release this testosterone in a natural way with their new wives instead of in an unnatural way with little children.

Yes, I'm sorry if I know it was not addressed to me.

This is a CC sight and when I read something that does not look like it's GODS word I have to ask questions.

The most important thing is being reborn and only one way to be reborn.

Since you are pointing out all of the Catholic problems as there are many, I was challenging you on yours.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate it, those who are wrong need to be challenged I can only guess not many Catholics on this sight to go against you and HIS word.

If I can't get in your business a little to question you why do you all in the Catholic business?

The Catholics isn't the only denomination who doesn't follow JESUS and HIS rule book will you be challenging them next?

These were my questions,

When Peters message is very clear why would you imply,

1. Peters messaged didn't mean what it said.

And why would you say,

2. What it means is they already got baptized in the name of Jesus through Peter's preaching?

How does someone get baptized for remission of sins while listening to someone speak?

If you will not answer them, will you at least look into them?

I'm just in the seed bossiness GOD BLESS YOU.

 

[Ouch]

I still bet that my understanding of GRFS is better than yours and I don’t quarrel.

Sorry, just have to ask.

Since you know more than me, and I bet you do in alot of subjects why don't you know how to get rid of our sins when HIS word is so clear how to?

Why don't you know what happens when a person is filled with the Holy Ghost?

Both are needed to be reborn.


John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


Do you call asking questing quarreling?

Please consider looking in to those questions, you life depends on them .

 

[GWH]

Catholic Mistake #1
Catholics were the first Christian Church
The term catholic church came after the bible was already written. So, when was the first church started? Many people consider the first christian church to be at pentecost in the year 33AD. Others consider the first christian church to be the church in Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts. This is considered the new testament church or the original church which consisted of devout Jews with James, the brother of Jesus, as the head. We know for sure that this is not the Roman Catholic Church because they hadn't even been invented or mentioned yet.

I have been tracking your posts regarding the Catholic errors, and I think we get the point by now, but I wonder what error do you think was first in the sense that all of the others resulted from it?

 

[Wansvic]

Saving faith implies or means repentance which coincides with receiving the Holy Spirit and is professed via verbal confession and water baptism.

Saving faith involves everything revealed at Pentecost. (Acts 2:4-42) This includes accepting that water baptism in the name of Jesus is necessary in order for one's sins to be remitted. (Luke 3:3, 24:47; Mark 1:1-5, Acts 22:16...) After experiencing the NT rebirth, born again believers are to preach the same gospel/confess Jesus to every person. (Mark 16:15-19, Rom. 10:9-10) This points to the Apostle Paul's statement that everyone is to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Php 2:12

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32


"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, AND be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, AND ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:36-42


"And he (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." Mark 16:15-19


"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Rom. 10:9-10


"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Php. 2:12