Brocab's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Brocab's Profile › Brocab's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 (of 172 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 11:44pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
Since this page is open for us to enjoy it, I thought since there's an open door for me to show you the Word of God, and also it gives you the opportunity to look up on the scriptures yourself, because you didn't know the answer-I thought I would support you, by responding to your call. Jesus didn't only send out the 12-but also the 70-72 disciples out into the wildness, preparing the way for the Lord. And plus, do we not support each other in Word and in truth? And plus do you like my findings above, the Catholic's believe circumcision is Baptism? And it still leaves you with the answer-of no return {Galatians 2:6-8} But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised {Gentiles} had been committed to me {Paul} as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles) Meaning both Peter and Paul received the Holy Spirit preaching the gospel to the nations-baptizing everyone who have chosen to believe in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Which again it leaves us with the question? If Peter spoke only to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles, then where do you fit in 'all this, is the Catholic Church now Jewish, that they need to fellow the traditions of the Mosaic laws, males must be circumcised before becoming Catholic through baptism.. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 10:53pm On Mar 25, 2018*. Modified: 11:33pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
https://www.catholic.com/ "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome. Can Infants Be "Born Again"? The Catholic's believe circumcision and baptism is this below.. {Leviticus 12:2-3}“Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male child, she shall be [ceremonially] unclean for seven days, unclean as during her monthly period. On the eighth day the flesh of the male child’s foreskin shall be circumcised. Of course we can expect infants to say a few words, just after their circumcision, just through their suffering they are repenting from their guiltless sinless nature. This is how dangerous this doctrine is, circumcise or baptising infants won't save them, Catholic's claiming to be baptised, have falling sort from God. Jesus's kingdom is not of this world, and yet wrong teaching have caused Catholic's to live, just as the world lives. When Peter delivered his sermon after Pentecost, he told the people to "repent and be baptized." So why does the Church baptize babies? If you get baptized without repenting, you’re just a wet sinner. The question is not merely about the time that baptism should be administered, but about the very nature of the sacrament. So if the question of infant baptism comes up, it is wise to discuss baptismal regeneration first. The Catholic understanding is that baptism is a sign that effects what it symbolizes, bringing about several things. One of these effects is regeneration—God’s very life comes into the person, taking away the guilt of original sin and infusing sanctifying grace into the soul, making the person a new creation. Evangelicals agree that baptism is a sign but not one that communicates grace to the believer. Rather, it symbolizes that the person has already been born again. If baptism is merely a sign that signifies a previous repentance and does nothing to the soul, then babies should not be baptized. But Scripture reveals that baptism does regenerate the soul and so should not withheld from infants. Before giving the supporting evidence for this, it is good to clarify that an adult is not to be baptized without having first repented. The normal process for an adult would be to believe, repent, and then be baptized (see "Of Water and the Spirit," page xx). Since Peter was speaking to adults in the passage quoted above, he said "repent and be baptized." Okay, we’ll deal with baptismal regeneration first. Where is that in the Bible? But where do you see babies being baptized in the New Testament? Before offering biblical evidence that infants should be baptized, notice the presupposition in the above question: "Where is it in the Bible?" The underlying premise is that if X is not explicit in the Bible, then a Christian need not accept X. This idea of sola scriptura must be addressed in your conversations, though only a short treatment can be offered here. The Bible does not explicitly recount children being baptized. Nor does it mention any infants that were refused the sacrament or any children that received it only upon reaching the age of reason. The fact is, Scripture is quiet about babies and baptism. For this reason, Protestantism is divided over the matter. {Martin} Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Methodists baptize infants, while Baptists, Pentecostals, and most non-denominational churches do not. All of the above groups believe that the Bible is the only rule of faith, but they have come to different conclusions on infant baptism. This is a good time to point out that the Bible commands Christians to hold fast to apostolic traditions that are not written down (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. The Bible does provide some indication that babies are to be baptized, though. When a person was converted, it is often said that his entire household was baptized (Acts 16:16,33; 1 Cor. 1:16). The Greek word for household is oikos, which can include infants. Also, it is worthwhile to examine the connection between circumcision and baptism. In the Old Testament, circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant. On the eighth day after a boy’s birth, his parents would have him circumcised, bringing him into the covenant with God. In {Colossians 2:11–12} Paul indicates that baptism had replaced circumcision. The important difference is that while circumcision could not save a person {Gal. 5:6, 6:15} "Baptism . . . now saves you" The Catholic's believe {1 Pet. 3:21} So, if a parent could bring an infant into the family of God through circumcision under the Old Covenant, why would God exclude infants from the family of God under the New Covenant? {1 Peter 3:21} Corresponding to that [rescue through the flood], baptism [which is an expression of a believer’s new life in Christ] now saves you, not by removing dirt from the body, but by an appeal to God for a good (clear) conscience, [demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These are the words of Peter after Pentecost, but very little attention is paid to the fact that he extends a "promise" to the children. {Acts 2:38–39} "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children"For the promise [of the Holy Spirit] is for you and your children and for all who are far away [including the Gentiles], as many as the Lord our God calls to Himself. ” The Catholic's believe Infant baptism is a practice of apostolic origin. Catholics do admit that in the third century there was a debate over infant baptism. Cyril records the disagreement: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]). You can see that the debate was not about whether or not to baptize infants; the issue was whether to wait until the eighth day to baptize a child as was the practice with circumcision {Leviticus 12:2-3} “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male child, she shall be [ceremonially] unclean for seven days, unclean as during her monthly period. On the eighth day the flesh of the male child’s foreskin shall be circumcised. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome. As Cyril mentioned, the Church rejected the innovation of Fidus to delay baptism. The apostolic practice had already been firmly passed on, as was recorded by Hippolytus in A.D. 215: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16). Of course we can expect infants to say a few words, just after their circumcision, repenting from their guilt of sin. This is how dangerous this doctrine is, baptising infants won't save them, Catholic's claiming to be baptised, have falling sort from God. Jesus's kingdom is not of this world, and yet wrong teaching have caused Catholic's to live, just as the world lives. Origin also mentions that in the year 248 infant baptism was nothing new: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9) Therefore, since we have now been justified [declared free of the guilt of sin] by His blood, [how much more certain is it that] we will be saved from the wrath of God through Him. So basically it isn't about the truth, it's about tradition, the Catholic's believe the apostles taught, without any bible references to back it up. This isn't bible knowledge this is from "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 9:25pm On Mar 25, 2018*. Modified: 9:52pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
{Luke 9:1-3} Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece. Not only the 12 disciples-how about the 70-72 Jesus sent out.. {Luke 10:1-2} After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. 9inches:{Galatians 2:6-8} But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised {Gentiles} had been committed to me {Paul} as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles) Meaning both Peter and Paul received the Holy Spirit preaching the gospel to the nations-baptizing everyone who have chosen to believe in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Which again it leaves us with the question? If Peter spoke only to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles, then where do you fit in 'all this, is the Catholic Church now Jewish, that they need to fellow the traditions of the Mosaic laws, males must be circumcised before becoming Catholic through baptism.. 9inches: 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 10:12pm On Mar 24, 2018 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:29pm On Mar 24, 2018*. Modified: 2:19pm On Mar 24, 2018 |
The truth is, just like Martin Luther, I believe and solemnly am filled with the Holy Spirit to preach the Word of God. I don't come to you, with your doctrine, I myself, Peter and Paul have come to you preaching the doctrine of Christ. But you have come to me preaching another doctrine, concerning the tradition of men. {Galatians 2:7-9} Amplified Bible (AMP) "But on the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles),just as Peter had been [entrusted to proclaim the gospel] to the circumcised (Jews) (For He who worked effectively for Peter and empowered him in his ministry to the Jews also worked effectively for me and empowered me in my ministry to the Gentiles). Which means, Peter wasn't empowered more then the others to do their ministry, no-one is greater then the least, "Peter filled with the Holy Spirit, proclaimed the Word of God to the Jews, "Is the Catholic Church claiming to be Jewish, or Did Paul who was also filled with the same Holy Spirit-preached the truth to the Gentiles? And recognizing the grace [that God had] bestowed on me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars [of the Jerusalem church], gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we could go to the Gentiles [with their blessing] and they to the circumcised (Jews) 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:27pm On Mar 24, 2018*. Modified: 2:24pm On Mar 24, 2018 |
https://www.catholic.com/ Was James The Real Leader of the Early Church? Carl Olson September 02, 2010 SHARE 1222 The 15th chapter of Acts is significant for its description of the first council of the Christian Church, providing insights into the inner workings of the early Church and the relationships among key leaders. The chapter is also notable as a battleground for ongoing, current-day disputes over Church authority. On one side stands the Catholic Church, upholding Peter as the foremost apostle and leader of the universal Church. In opposition, in a diverse array of attitudes, stands a host of scholars and theologians who claim that James, the “brother of Jesus” (Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19), was the leader of the early Church, perhaps even the first pope. This position has roots going back to the Reformation, and many Protestants—whether they be conservative, liberal, or progressive in theological terms—consider James the greatest of the early Church leaders. James, Greater than Peter? Since the late 1990s, several books have been written about James, the “brother of Jesus,” most notably Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Columbia, SC: University of South Caroline Press, 1997), by John Painter; James, Brother of Jesus (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1996), by Pierre-Antoine Bernheim; and James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Viking Press, 1997), by Robert Eisenman. All three authors write about the “minimizing” of James by early Church writers and authorities, and either overtly or implicitly claim James was the victim of Church politics aimed at keeping Peter’s pre-eminence intact. Bernheim, for example, states, Acts and the Letter to the Galatians attribute considerable authority to James, seemingly greater than that of Peter. Questions of power and authority in the primitive church are of more than academic interest, since the Roman Catholic Church bases the supremacy of the pope, the Bishop of Rome, on the primacy of Peter. According to Catholic doctrine, Peter, who was designated the foundation and the ultimate authority of the apostolic Church (Matthew 16:13-20) maintained his primacy throughout his life and transmitted it to his successors as bishops of Rome. (James, Brother of Jesus, 191) Bernheim is correct to note the importance of {Matthew 16} in the matter of Petrine authority. But does Acts 15 contradict the famous “keys of the kingdom” passage and even portray James as a greater authority than Peter? Pentecostal author Rosanna J. Evans makes such a case in her booklet, “Crossing The Threshold of Deception”: Among the more compelling arguments [for Peter not being pope], is that of the leadership at the Jerusalem Council. . . . What is of interest here, is not necessarily the proclamations made at this council, but the conspicuous position (or lack thereof) Peter held. While he was, without doubt, present at this momentous council, he certainly did not preside over it; this honor went to James, not Peter. Additionally, although Peter had some say in the procession itself, it was James, not Peter, who decided the outcome of the deliberations . . . Without a doubt, the man James was the one who presided over the Jerusalem Council. (18, 19) In his commentary on Acts, Evangelical scholar I. Howard Marshall presents Peter as a central but still lesser authority than James, a perspective held by numerous Evangelical commentators. While Peter appealed to experience, Marshall states, “The decisive voice in the meeting, however, lay neither with Peter nor with the delegates from Antioch, but with James. This may have been due partly to the position which he increasingly came to hold as the foremost leader in the church (12:17), and partly also to the fact that he was regarded as a champion of a conservative Jewish outlook” (Acts, 249, 251). Was Peter really inconspicuous at the Jerusalem Council? Did he take a secondary role to James? What does the text really say? Context and Choices In the 1973 book Peter in the New Testament, published as a “collaborative assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars” and sponsored by the United States Lutheran–Roman Catholic Dialogue as Background for Ecumenical Discussions of the Role of the Papacy in the Universal Church, three basic theories of early Church authority based upon Acts 15 are presented. The three theories of authority are: 1) Peter and the other members of the twelve were concerned with a Christian mission far more extensive than just Jerusalem. They were never really local church leaders, once Jerusalem became big enough to require such caretakers. James was the first leader of the local church at Jerusalem (at least for the Hebrew Christians) and remained there after Peter and the other members of the twelve left the scene, whether through death or on travels. James had authority only in Jerusalem (and its “province”), but his name was known more widely because he was a blood relative of Jesus. Paul’s loyalty was to the “mother church” or community of saints in Jerusalem. His respect for James was a respect for the local leader of that church. 2) Peter was a local leader at Jerusalem (even though he was known more widely because he had been a close follower of Jesus during the ministry). James took Peter’s place as the local Jerusalem leader (when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier). Neither of them had a role as leader in the Universal Church, for, in fact, there was no single leader in the Universal Church. 3) Peter was a universal leader, operating from Jerusalem as the center of Christianity, and was succeeded by James. In other words, the position of universal influence that Peter had at Jerusalem (except his apostleship) was transferred to James when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier. The first theory aligns essentially with the Catholic belief; the second covers a wide range of mainline Protestant perspectives; and the third—the most extreme view—is embraced by more radical, liberal scholars. Acts 15 can be broken into four basic sections. 1} The first (vs. 1-5) sets the scene and explains the conflict between Gentile and Jewish Christians over the observance of various Mosaic customs and laws. 2} The second (vs. 6-18)—the section that concerns us here—contains the discussion, including debate (v. 7a), Peter’s speech (vs. 7b-11), the witness of Paul and Barnabas (v. 12), and James’ speech (vs. 13-21). 3} The third section (vs. 19-29) explains the decision reached at the council, including the letter to be sent to the churches. 4}The final section (vs. 30-35) presents some of the reaction to the letter. The council consisted of “the apostles and the elders” who had gathered together to “look into the matter” and come to some sort of solution. The Catholic understanding is that this gathering was a blueprint and prototype for future Church councils. As such, it included the gathering of leaders from the entire Church, not just a particular region; it made decrees binding on all Christians; it addressed matters of faith and morals; and it issued documents recording essential statements, decrees, canons, and so forth. Finally, but certainly not least, it was presided over by the pope (either in person or by representative) The Jerusalem Council began with a spirited debate (v. 7a). Then Peter spoke, appealing to the “early days” and his experience in bringing the gospel to the household of Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts 10). We are saved by grace, Peter stated, not by works of the Law (v. 11). A marked silence followed his speech (v. 12a). Then Barnabas and Paul testified to God’s work “among the Gentiles” (v. 12b). After they had finished, James gave his speech, pointing to both the words of Peter (“Simeon,” v. 14) and the Prophets (vs. 15-18). He then offered his “judgment”: the Gentiles would not have to observe the ceremonial Law. An authoritative letter was then written, stating “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us to lay upon you no greater burden” than abstaining from “things sacrificed to idols,” from blood and things strangled, and “from fornication” (vs. 28-29). Unlikely Allies As noted already, the Fundamentalist anti-Catholic position is that Peter’s role at the council was so minimal he was essentially persona non grata. Noted anti-Catholic and Presbyterian theologian Loraine Boettner wrote the following in his Roman Catholicism: At that council not Peter but James presided and announced the decision with the words, “Wherefore my judgement is . . .” (vs. 19). And his judgement was accepted by the apostles and presbyters. Peter was present, but only after there had been “much questioning” (vs. 7) did he even so much as express an opinion. He did not attempt to make any infallible pronouncements although the subject under discussion was a vital matter of faith. In any event it is clear that the unity of the early church was maintained not by the voice of Peter but by the decision of the ecumenical council which was presided over by James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. (116) Ironically, the Fundamentalist view of Peter and James is very similar to that of the liberal and radical scholars. The same anti-Catholic, anti-authoritarian sentiment runs through their writings. They even use some of the same arguments, particularly an appeal to Galatians 2 as the final say about Peter’s role in the early Church. Martin Hengel, in Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, clearly thinks James was the leader of the early Church while Peter either faded or fled. After the withdrawal of the “twelve,” James, at the head of the elders, was able to take over complete control of the Jerusalem community. Given this situation in Jerusalem, the only possibility for Peter . . . was to move out into the Greek-speaking Diapora, where we can see his activity in Antioch and Rome, and at least his influence in Corinth. . . . Nevertheless, the succession of apostles and elders marks inner changes in the Jerusalem community which resulted in James and the elders taking over the leadership, gradually suppressing Peter and the older group of apostles . . . (96-96, 115) John Painter, the author of Just James, also appeals to Galatians 2 as the final court of appeal regarding Peter and James, saying that “it is likely that James was the first leader of the Jerusalem church” and, In Acts Luke tries to reconcile conflicts and to reconcile the later tradition of Petrine leadership in the church at large with the tradition of the original leadership of James in Jerusalem. This strategy is possible because of the authority of James over Peter, even exercised at a distance, is demonstrated in {Galatians 2:11-14} and there is no reason to think that the situation was different at the beginning of the Jerusalem church. (84) It is Bernheim, however, who appears most driven to discredit the Catholic Church’s claim to authority by showing Peter’s utter submission before James. James’s “dominant position” is fully realized at the council, he argues. “Regardless of the historicity of Acts 15, James, by speaking last, summing up the discussion and proposing the decision which figures in the Apostolic Decree, appears as the one who presided over the assembly” (193). Bernheim continually questions the authenticity of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16, but has no problem building the vast majority of his case from the incident in Galatians 2. He arbitrarily makes a convenient distinction between authority among the disciples before and after Christ’s death, claiming that Peter’s leadership dissolved following the death of Jesus and that the early Christians broke into small, competing groups in the aftermath of the Crucifixion. As usual, an assault on the continuity of early Church authority is meant to undermine the papacy and the magisterium today. Petrine Primacy in Acts. The Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope is not based on sola scriptura, selective use of Scripture, or just a single passage of Scripture. (See “Beyond Matthew 16:18,” page 30.) As for Acts 15, a number of factors point to Peter actually being both the leader at the council and the leader of the early Church. First, there is the manner in which his speech begins and ends. By standing up to speak after the debate had subsided, Peter made an emphatic physical gesture affirming his authority and centrality. The silence afterwards indicated the finality of what Peter had just said; no one disputes either his speech or his right to make it. In fact, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, along with James’s speech, only reinforce and agree with what Peter says. Secondly, few non-Catholic commentators seem to notice the striking wording Peter used in his speech. If he was only a witness, wouldn’t he have appealed only to his experience? But while Peter did focus on his experience, the main object of his speech was God: “God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech. As mentioned, Paul, Barnabas, and James all reinforced and agreed with Peter’s declaration, albeit in different ways. The first two related “the signs and wonders God” had been working “among the Gentiles” (v. 12). James pointed first to the words of Peter and then to the Prophets (vs. 14-15). Those who claim James’s speech was the definitive one point to the language in verse 19 (“Therefore it is my judgement . . .”) as evidence for James’s primacy. Yet James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed. “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church,” state Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “He formulates a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21)” (232). Problems with Authority, One can only conclude that those commentators and scholars who take issue with Peter’s primacy have, for various reasons, taken an anti-Catholic, anti-papal stance. They labor under a skewed understanding of what the papacy is and how the papal office relates to the Church as a whole. As a result, they are prone to interpret Peter’s actions and the history of the early Church incorrectly. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 6:31am On Mar 24, 2018 |
We see bible verses, but out of that, I don't read where the Catholic Church comes into place.. Church of believers coming together under one fellowship, in one accord. Where does the protestants stand with the Catholic's, and when do we agree upon the Word of God? And when did the Catholic's agree with Peter's teachings, and don't agree upon the Word of God the protestants speak off... 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 6:27am On Mar 24, 2018 |
In what way have they the answers? 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 6:06am On Mar 24, 2018 |
I thought you had all the answers, this is why I have applied, and returned your call.. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 6:03am On Mar 24, 2018 |
Which church—that is, which denomination of Christianity—is the “true church”? Which church is the one that God loves and cherishes and died for? Which church is His bride? (Ephesians 2:8–9). The answer is that no visible church or denomination is the true church, because the bride of Christ is not an institution, but is instead a spiritual entity made up of those who have by grace through faith been brought into a close, intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Those people, no matter which building, denomination, or country they happen to be in, constitute the true church. In the Bible, we see that the local (or visible) church is nothing more than a gathering of professing believers. Interestingly enough, the word church is never used in the Bible to describe a building or organization. It is easy to get ensnared by the idea that a particular denomination within Christianity is “the true church,” but this view is a misunderstanding of Scripture. When choosing a church to attend, it is important to remember that a gathering of believers should be a place where those who belong to the true church (the spiritual entity) feel at home. That is to say, a good local church will uphold the Word of God, honoring it and preaching faithfully, proclaim the gospel steadfastly, and feed and tend the sheep. A church that teaches heresy or engages in sin will eventually be very low on (or entirely bereft of) those people that belong to the true church—the sheep who hear the voice of the Shepherd and follow Him (John 10:27) The true church is the bride of Christ (Revelation 21:2, 9; 22:17) and the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 12:27). It cannot be contained, walled in, or defined by anything other than its love for Christ and its dedication to Him. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 5:41am On Mar 24, 2018 |
But sadly that Church isn't the Catholic Church.And the Rock was never Peter-the Rock is Christ, the chief cornerstone, Christ is the true foundation, the Word of God built the Church, the Church was never built upon sin, and Peter just like you and I are sinners.. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 5:30am On Mar 24, 2018 |
Thru shalt not make graven images, nor bow down to them. I am sure these are to 2 commandments that confuses the 10 commandment we are more concerned about, the Sabbath is another. Dnaz:And if you feel I haven't the right to Judge, think again, by their fruit we will know them, by the above statements, worry about that large plunk you have in your own eye's, before you criticise, my love I have for the neighbours. And what makes you think I don't keep the Sabbath? And why do Catholic's always go into a defence mode, when all I am doing is trying to correct someone who is wandering from the truth. {James 5:19-20} Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. Have you never read {1 John 1:8-10} If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. Dnaz: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 4:58am On Mar 24, 2018 |
No" it isn't the same way-my mother forcing me to go to school' isn't a life and death situation. This is why it is important we have choices, and a infant can't make these choices, nor did the infant make choices at 8 day's old, the problem is. back then it was a custom to obey the law of the land, and in those early day's young boy's weren't baptised, but circumcised. "Circumcision was the physical sign of the covenant God made with Abraham. O/T And Baptism is, in some sense, the sign of the New Covenant God makes with His Church. N/T But sadly many Reformed traditions have made a very close parallel between circumcision and baptism and have used the Old Testament teaching on circumcision to justify the baptism of infants. The argument goes like this: since infants born into the Old Testament Jewish community were circumcised, infants born into the New Testament church community should be baptized. (Matthew 28:19). Jesus commanded baptism in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Baptism is the outward sign of an inward change. It represents rebirth in Christ. This passage also specifies that the new life, represented by baptism, comes “through your faith.” This implies that the one being baptized has the ability to exercise faith. Since infants are not capable of exercising faith, they should not be candidates for baptism. How can we know what the inward change is within an infant, babe's aren't capable to make choices. Likewise if someone born (physically) under the Old Covenant received the sign of that covenant (circumcision) likewise, someone born (spiritually) under the New Covenant (“born again,” John 3:3) receives the sign of that covenant (baptism) 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 3:30am On Mar 24, 2018 |
Church history is not where I belong, Christ is where I belong. According to {1 Timothy 3:15} the house of God “is the church of the living God.” Does anybody live in the Catholic Church. Is the Catholic Church "The Spirit of Truth or the Spirit of Error, Now he who keeps the Lords commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. Does the Catholic Church abide with Martin Luther, does abide with anybody outside the Catholic Church? {John 2:2-8} The Test of Knowing Him-Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. {1 Corinthians 1:10-13} Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” {or I am of the Catholic Church} or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? {Was the Catholic Church crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of the Catholic Church?} 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 12:00am On Mar 24, 2018 |
It is pretty clear what it teaches, the problem is, you have many Catholic's deciding what to write, and there are many interpretations, it seems the Catholic's writing these interpretations, haven't a clue which God they believe. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 5:39am On Mar 21, 2018 |
Does age have anything to do what you have given unto me, https://www.catholic.com/ firstly you winched I wasn't responding to these sites, now I am here, you are lost in words. You said: to me if I wanted to know more about the Catholic's I can use these sites, well I am here. Jesus said:If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand, and now it seems you aren't standing really well; maybe you should be searching the sites, and compare them with the scriptures, or maybe better for you is to keep on believing the lies you have been teaching since you have entered this page. "But thanks I am quite pleased, about the differences the Catholic's know about each other. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 5:22am On Mar 21, 2018*. Modified: 5:44am On Mar 21, 2018 |
The site you have given me-https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/infant-baptism! Say's there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism. Though passages in the New Testament contain principles supporting infant baptism. (e.g., Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21), the first overt statements that the children of believing households were baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision. (see quotation from Cyprian, below; compare {Lev. 12:2–3, Col 2:11–12} {Acts 2:37-39} When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and asked Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you and to your children and to all who are far off, to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself. Look how dangerous this actually sounds, the parents actually made an infant's decision? (John 1:12) But to all who have received him--those who believe in his name--he has given the right to become God's children. Do infant at the age of 8 day's old-or between a certain age even know Christ, do they actually understand the scriptures well enough to make their long life decision, and plus when do parents allow infants to make decisions for themselves? Peter was talking to those who understood, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise [of the Holy Spirit] is for you and your children and for all who are far away [including the Gentiles], as many as the Lord our God calls to Himself.” This promise is given for everybody, whom God calls, not the other way around, sadly He knows not everyone are suited for His kingdom, He said many are called, but few are chosen. {John 15} Jesus said: “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you.” Do the Catholic's even understand the scriptures? This sounds like once born again always born again, the infant say's to himself, because my parents made my choice 8 day's after I was born, If I was to live the life I choose-break the law, steal kill and destroy, and I am still sinning then because of the decision my parents made, by their choice they gave me the keys to heaven. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:00am On Mar 21, 2018 |
1. https://www.catholic.com/ And the first page I opened up said this? Is Sex Okay As Long As Nobody Gets Hurt? Does this mean it is alright for the Catholic's to have sex without marriage? I looked into number 1 site again, and I wrote-Are Catholic's born again, saved? And I found that Augustine say's he knows it is not written in the bible, he said: parents can make their own decisions to have anybody, infants to be baptised, by doing this under the banner of the Catholic Church, they are born again Christians, they are taught by their works, they are saved. It shows their teachings isn't about the bible, it's about works in the Catholic Church. The Victor of Christ-Pope Francis had said: Quote-By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM) 5/30/2013 (4 years ago) Catholic Online (https://www.catholic.org) Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! Pope Francis said: Jesus died and was raised for them as well. His redemptive embrace was for all, not just a chosen few. The choice to accept its reach is our own. The Holy Father was not teaching anything new. In fact, the Pope continual's this hope that all who do not yet know God are not only capable of doing good - but will progress toward that knowledge of God by doing good - is ancient. Well Pope Francis is teaching something new. If sin could enter into Heaven, then holiness isn't needed, and Christ never died, and the race we started will never end. Jesus said: Many are called, but few are chosen. Obviously Jesus is not the only way into heaven, and the scriptures below don't exist, according to the Catholic's.. {2 Timothy 1:9} Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. {John 6:44} Jesus said "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me, draw him: and I will raise him up on the last day. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 12:20am On Mar 21, 2018 |
The Catholic Church teaches, Is Sex Okay As Long As Nobody Gets Hurt? Does this mean the Catholic's practices sex without marriage? 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 10:22pm On Mar 20, 2018*. Modified: 12:54am On Mar 21, 2018 |
Thanks bro-stick around, you will be well and truly needed here-your studying with the Catholic's, should fill in their emptiness. Yes we all have had dealings with the Catholic's, well enough to know they hide behind the Word of God, but never ever seem to practice it, I have seen it myself, the Catholic Church is full of idolaters, bowing down, dipping their bodies or nodding their heads while entering into a Catholic Church, the Church follows their shepherd, they actually believe these statues are the true images of the heavenly realm. The Catholic's claim to know Him, but their hearts are far from Him. I was given two sites by 9 inches, claiming everything I need to know about Catholic's go to these two sites. 1. https://www.catholic.com/ 2. http://www.ewtn.com/search.asp Well I did, 1. https://www.catholic.com/ And the first page I opened up said this? Is Sex Okay As Long As Nobody Gets Hurt? I looked into number 1 site again, and I wrote-Are Catholic's born again, saved? And I found that Augustine say's he knows it is not written in the bible, he said: parents can make their own decisions to have anybody, infants to be baptised, by doing this under the banner of the Catholic Church, they are born again Christians, they are taught by their works, they are saved. It shows their teachings isn't about the bible, it's about works in the Catholic Church. The Victor of Christ-Pope Francis had said: Quote-By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM) 5/30/2013 (4 years ago) Catholic Online (https://www.catholic.org) Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! Pope Francis said: Jesus died and was raised for them as well. His redemptive embrace was for all, not just a chosen few. The choice to accept its reach is our own. The Holy Father was not teaching anything new. In fact, the Pope continual's this hope that all who do not yet know God are not only capable of doing good - but will progress toward that knowledge of God by doing good - is ancient. Well Pope Francis is teaching something new, it isn't scriptural, If sin could enter into Heaven, then holiness isn't needed, and Christ never died, and the race we started will never end. Jesus said: Many are called, but few are chosen. Obviously Jesus is not the only way into heaven, and the scriptures below don't exist.. {2 Timothy 1:9} Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. {John 6:44} Jesus said "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me, draw him: and I will raise him up on the last day. shadeyinka: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:44pm On Mar 20, 2018*. Modified: 2:53pm On Mar 20, 2018 |
1. https://www.catholic.com/ This is the first page I opened up and this is what it said: Is Sex Okay As Long As Nobody Gets Hurt? With this very same site-I asked a simple question "Are Catholic's born again "saved" and I read Augustine wrote,"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated-when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. Augustine believes it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5]. How do infants know he/she is baptised, and what sort of faith do you expect an infant to have? And if the parent's don't follow Christ-then what sort of baptism did the infant receive? "And what does the Catholic church expect out of it? Jesus made a point to be baptised as a man-men make decisions, infants can't make he/she decisions. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:41pm On Mar 20, 2018 |
Are you that dumb too? Dnaz: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 3:45am On Mar 20, 2018 |
Why do Protestants know the Word of God-and Catholicism don't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnYSs89qpnU |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 3:25am On Mar 20, 2018*. Modified: 4:12am On Mar 20, 2018 |
Who's arguing? Well if you had something I could go by, something with a little knowledge, I have watched your video's, and there is nothing in them that has anything to do with Christ. Which of course it leaves me wondering about, trying to find something that may interest you, of course none of it does. Those sites you have given me, I had told you, if they were about Christ I would be interested, don't you believe in Christ yourself well enough to even want to try and support your theories, you give me sites, without the message-sites that drag on and on, not going anywhere, and you expect me to follow up on What? Give me directions that's in those sites, but if you were to prove you are a believer in Christ, then give me sites, that can prove your theory. Don't leave me posted-give me something about your authorized Catholic teachings, did you like the 2 page truth about the Catholic Church, it was a great finding-and it is detailed in scripture. Unless you can prove the bible is wrong, and your Church is right? You ask why do protestants hate Catholic's, haven't you watched Lizzie, she hates protestants. The problem is 9 inches, we can go on for ever with these theories of yours, I am still waiting for you to open up a door-to prove your facts, but it seems you keep on pushing your facts over to someone else, to explain for you, but they aren't explaining these facts-not the facts I need. See what you don't understand is, God sent His Spirit to teach us all things, in Word and in truth. {2 Timothy 3:15-17} From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.… 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:52am On Mar 20, 2018 |
And what is the most Hatred Church? Which Church with authority-have ripped families apart, have destroyed innocent lives, have raped the youth, have murdered, and have ruined the lives of millions. Which Church stands high above God, who have no remorse, no repentance, nor forgiveness? And the problem with me is nil-you just can't handle the truth. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:42am On Mar 20, 2018*. Modified: 2:07am On Mar 20, 2018 |
AND YOU DO? JUST LIKE YOUR FIRST POPE, SIMON MAGUS! Claiming it to be Simon Peter.. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:40am On Mar 20, 2018*. Modified: 1:30pm On Mar 20, 2018 |
Another teaching the Roman Catholic Church puts forward is the teaching that there has been an unbroken line of Popes since Peter. But there is a problem with this teaching also. First, no Christians for FOUR CENTURIES after the time of Christ believed that Peter was the leader of the church. This teaching wasn't accepted until around A.D.445 during the reign of Pope Leo I. It was only during this time that the Catholic Church needed to find some Biblical support for Papal supremacy. The other problem with this teaching of an unbroken line is that in A.D.1045, Pope Benedict IX was ran out of office because of his unworthiness, with Silvester III taking his place. When Benedict IX returned, he sold the Papal throne to Gregory VI, but still refused to give up his own claim to the throne. So at this time, all three men claimed to be the legitimate Pope! Then in 1046, the German Emperor Henry III settled it by deposing all three Popes and appointing a fourth, Clement II. So history hardly supports this "unbroken line" of Popes. So Who Was the First Pope? {Acts 8:9-22} ...'But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 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. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. The Roman Catholic Church tell their followers that they can PURCHASE salvation with money through the doctrine of indulgences! Simon Magus was a Pagan who blended his Pagan ways with Christianity. Yes, he asked Peter to pray for him so that none of the bad things Peter said would happen to him would come upon him. But it is widely accepted by Christian historians that Simon Magus did not leave his Pagan ways behind. Instead he blended them into his new "Christian" beliefs. Which is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church is, a blending of Paganism and Christianity. Now what did Simon Magus try to do? He tried to PURCHASE the gift of God with money, which the apostle Peter strongly rebuked. And what has the Roman Catholic Church done all throughout history and still does today? They offer salvation to those who are willing to BUY IT through indulgences! The very thing that Simon Magus wanted to do. You will notice from the verses in {Acts 8} that Simon Magus was not just a Pagan who practiced sorcery. He was in fact the LEADER of the Pagan "church" and had many followers who thought that he was ordained of God! "The author, or first representative of this baptized heathenism, according to the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, is Simon Magus, who unquestionably adulterated Christianity with pagan ideas and practices, and gave himself out, in a pantheistic style for an emanation of God." (Schaff's History of the Church, Apostolic Christianity, Vol. 2, p. 566) And where did Simon Magus end up going? When Justin Martyr wrote his Apology [152 A.D.], the sect of the Simonians appears to have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon; and we need not doubt that he identified him with the Simon of Acts 8. He states that he was a Samaritan, adding that his birthplace was a village called Gitta; he describes him as a formidable magician, and tells that he came to ROME in the days of Claudius Caesar (45 A.D.), and made such an impression by his magical powers, THAT HE WAS HONORED AS A GOD, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription 'Simoni deo Sancto' (the holy god Simon) (Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682). Simon Magus went to Rome and setup his new "church" there. An amalgamation of Paganism and Christianity! And yet the apostle Peter did not go to Rome. It was Paul who was the apostle to the Romans! SO WHO WAS THE FIRST POPE? IT WAS SIMON MAGUS, THE PAGAN SORCERER! 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:23am On Mar 20, 2018 |
Was Peter the First "Pope"? Roman Catholicism teaches that the apostle Peter was the first "pope" and that there has been an unbroken line of Pope Peterpopes since Peter. From this belief they proclaim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church because Peter (and the Catholic Church) were given the "keys", so to speak, to the kingdom of God and no other church has been given those keys. The Catholic Church base this teaching on those well known words that Christ Jesus spoke to Peter in Matthew: {Matthew 16:18} 'And I say unto thee Peter, thou art Peter [petros], and upon this Rock [petra] will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' So who was the "rock" [petra] that Christ was talking about? Was it Peter like the Catholics believe? Or was Christ speaking of Himself? Well, we are going to use the best way of getting to the TRUTH of this verse, by using the Bible to interpret itself. How did the Disciples Interpret This? Would you agree that the best way to interpret these words from Jesus is to find out how the other apostles who heard these very words understood them? After all, if Jesus really did mean that Peter was to be the "head" of the church, then we should find some support for this in the rest of the New Testament writings. Let us start with the very apostle who these words were directed at; Peter. Who did Peter believe was the "rock" upon which the church was to be built? Speaking of Jesus Christ before the people, Peter said: {Acts 4:11-12} ...'This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.' Ok, is there any reference at all here from Peter that the church was to be built upon himself? No, he clearly points to Christ Jesus as the "stone" or "rock" that the church is to be built on, with Jesus being the HEAD of it. And notice what else Peter says. He clearly states that NO OTHER NAME HAS BEEN GIVEN AMONGST MEN whereby we can be saved. Only Jesus Christ. And yet the Catholic leaders teach that it is only through the Roman Church that salvation can be secured, due to Jesus giving Peter the "headship" of the church. But Peter himself disagrees with them! {1 Peter 5:1-4} ...'The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.' I love this verse from Peter. We can clearly see that Peter thought himself to be just an "elder" amongst the other elders of the church. Nothing more! And he confirms Christ to be the "chief Shepherd" and only Leader of the Christian church. Also, look at what else he says. No one is to act as a "lord" over God's heritage, ie, no one is to exercise any kind of dominion over the church. A rebuke to Roman Catholicism from the very man they believe to be their leader and first pope! What about the apostle Paul. Who did he proclaim as the "rock"? Well, in all of Paul's writings in the New Testament, not once does he refer to Peter as any kind of leader of the church. But he does share something interesting: {1 Corinthians 10:1-4} 'Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.' The Greek word for "rock" here is the same one used by Jesus in Matthew 16, which is "PETRA". And Paul is clearly pointing to Christ Jesus as that "Petra" (Rock). Interestingly, the Old Testament is awash with verses describing our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as a "Rock". See {Deuteronomy 32:4; 1 Samuel 2:2; Psalms 18:2; Psalms 28:1} The Rock of Calvary-Paul also states in {1 Corinthians 3:11} that "no other foundation can be laid other than the one already laid which is Christ Jesus." What is a building built upon? It's a FOUNDATION right? So the "Rock" that Jesus said He would build His church on is the very foundation of the church, which is Christ Jesus crucified. Think about it. How can the Christian church be built upon a sinful man, Peter? There is nothing to build upon with Peter, because salvation requires faith in Christ Jesus alone, and Him crucified for our sins. THAT is the "rock", the rock of calvary. There is NO OTHER foundation that the church can be built upon. And if we attempt to build a church on a sinful man, then that church will end up falling, just like Babylon has fallen! Because she built her foundation upon the sand, rather than the TRUE rock, which is Christ Jesus. So let's ask the disciples who is the "greatest" among them and if Jesus had given any one of them the position as leader:{Luke 22:24} 'And there was strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.' Now this is AFTER {Matthew 16} so surely they should know who is the leader of them, because Jesus had already told them. The problem is, they clearly understood Jesus' words in {Matthew 16} to be pointing to Himself, NOT Peter. Which is why they are now arguing as to which one of them should be the leader. And what about Jesus' reply to their arguing? He will surely clear this up and tell them that Peter is now the leader right? Wrong. Jesus confirms no such thing. In fact, He states that WHOEVER wants to be the greatest, needs to be the least. In {Galatians 2} we find Paul confirming that he was the apostle to take the gospel to the Gentile world, while Peter was the apostle charged with taking the gospel to the Jews. And Paul states in {verse 9} that it was James, Cephas (Peter) and John who ALL "SEEMED" to be pillars of the church. Making no distinction between them whatsoever. What about the great church meeting in {Acts 15}? Did Peter stand out as the leader in this great meeting? No, Peter did speak, but if you read the whole of that meeting, you will see that in fact James seemed to be the presiding elder, as he was the one who gave the final decision on the question of circumcision, see {Acts 15:19} The Church is Built With "Stones" {1 Peter 2:5-8} 'Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believe on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious?: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: where unto also they were appointed.' Can you see the truth contained in these words from Peter himself? All who believe in Jesus Christ and accept that He is the Son of the Living God, become "lively stones", just like Peter did in {Matthew 16} We all become "petros" (stones) and are built up into a spiritual house. A house that is built upon the "ROCK" which is Christ Jesus, the ONLY sure foundation for the church. As we have already stated, and this point needs to take root in our minds. The Christian church could NEVER be built upon a sinful man, because it would end up falling. To build the church upon a sinner, would be just like building a house upon the sand, which Jesus told us about in {Matthew 7} No, the only sure foundation to build a house upon is the sinless life of Christ Jesus and His sacrifice on Calvary. THAT is the ONLY rock the church can be safely built upon. And when the storm comes, the house will remain standing. There can only be ONE head of the body (church) and that is Jesus Christ {Colossians 1:18} 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 12:08am On Mar 20, 2018*. Modified: 12:25am On Mar 20, 2018 |
The problem with your asking, I don't have to leave this Page to find X Catholic's, just like shadeyinka: is an X Catholic he studied with them 5 years, so if I needed to know anything about Catholicism, I am sure he/she will know the in's and out's. I could claim I am also an X Catholic, but gratefully I am so happy I wasn't brought up to be one, I have witness the truth, I have read the fruit, I have seen with my own eye's, how many of you so called believers don't fellowship with Jesus-nor spend time with Jesus to know Him. Anybody who denies Christ in any form or shape, don't belong to Christ, "as a Child I didn't know much about Catholicism, but as time passes I have learned the in's and out's about the Catholic's on this form, thanks to people like you.. And man I am so grateful God had called me into His kingdom, not your kingdom-I wouldn't want anything else, other then God in my life-and nothing will change that. 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 10:55pm On Mar 19, 2018*. Modified: 12:05am On Mar 20, 2018 |
shadeyinka:Interesting-is this what Mohammed saw-the trinity of God Mary and Jesus, this was something I didn't know? But through study I found this below. Muhammad was not a very well informed theologian when he wrote the Koran. Yes, we know, Muslims will tell us that Muhammad didn't write the Qur'an. After all that way they can blame Allah for the errors and their prophet remains sinless and blameless! Mohammed mistakenly thought that Mary was the third member of the Christian trinity, and here is what the Koran says: 1.“And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden? (Koran 5:116) 2."O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs." (Koran 4:171) 3."They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." (Koran 5:73) So basically Islam and Catholicism are the same-Muhammad and Catholicism believe in three distinct gods, the Father (Allah), Son (Isa) and Mary-the Catholic's believe the godhead is also-the Father, the Son and Mary. What does the bible say? shadeyinka: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 10:07pm On Mar 19, 2018*. Modified: 10:42pm On Mar 19, 2018 |
It shows you expect me to follow up on the video's you produce, but you aren't interested in returning your expectations. I suppose James White is another Martin Luther-then I suppose I am too, I don't believe anything that concerns God outside the bible, I have learn everything about God, through the Word of God. I suppose everything you were taught has nothing to do with knowing God first, but your Church, comes before God, "if Church paganism doesn't line up with the word of God, it is tradition of men, men without God obey the law of men. I retrieved the video up on you tube, its open to the public, why? because the truth will be revealed, meaning God is at hand, He had made a way so every man women and child will know, Jesus Christ is the doorway into our souls. {Revelation 3:20} Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sit with him, and he with me. We all know first hand-If I had retrieved the video out from a Catholic site-the video wouldn't even exist, and for the second Video-are they Catholic's, I believe they were at one stage, as they have obviously studied Catholicism, because they know the in's and out's about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. But you will never know this, because you aren't ready to listen to no body outside your self righteous behaviour. James White is everywhere on you tube, not only the Catholic site, as you claim-but debating against the the JW's too, and everyone who is against the Word of God.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFbXOg5Kt8M 9inches: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:59am On Mar 19, 2018 |
Does this mean the Catholic's have rewritten their own doctrine, just to refuse the bible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcmf7FX4cYA |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 (of 172 pages)