What Does Baptism Mean To You

[LysanderShapiro]

What I said is well known throughout Christianity. Do you believe all scripture is literal? I don' t ...Scripture is made up of Types and Shadows, Dual And Hidden meanings, Literal meanings.

I agree with you that treating all of scripture as literal is neglecting the case that the Bible is a collection of books written in different genres -- some literal and some symbolic. However, that doesn't mean we can pick and choose which ones we want to be literal and which to be symbolic...which I suspect you agree with me there too.

Example: Jesus taught in Matthew 28 v 19 to " Go Forth, Baptizing in THE NAME of The Father, Son, And Holy Ghost" yet when the Apostles carried out Water Baptism in Book of Acts they all Baptized every person in The Name of Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus, or simply The Lord. Here are all the verses where this is mentioned;
(1) Acts 2 v 38
(2) Acts 8 v 16
(3) Acts 10 v 48
(4) Acts 19 v 5

Do you believe these verses contradict one another or compliment one another?

Now go find one, just one verse where anyone was ever Baptized in The " Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Just one. Because what you let go over your head everything mentioned in the Bible does not mean it LITERALLY.

I agree that not everything can or should be taken literally...but the passages meant literally should absolutely be literal. I think it's fair to discuss and look closely at the scriptures to better understand them and study them to grow closer to God, but that doesn't mean the scriptures are subjective.

Know why Everybody was Baptized in Jesus' Name?
Two Reasons: (1) Colossians 3 v 17 And whatsoever YOU DO in Word or DEED do ALL in The Name of The Lord Jesus, giving Thanks to God and The Father by him.

(2) Jesus is the name of the Father......John 5 v 43

Jesus is the Name of The Son....MATTHEW 1 V 25

Jesus is the Name of The Holy Ghost....John 14 v 26

Amen.

Now you see how every verse is not literal in meaning. The Apostles even asked Jesus Why He Spoke To Some People In parables..." Because hearing, they hear not, and seeing, they see not, neither do they understand"

I never disagreed that some passages are symbolic. Though why do you take baptism as symbolic when these passages, especially the gospels, are written in very literally in contrast to, say, Psalm or Numbers which are written in figuratively and poetically?

What I revealed to you about circumcision I will stand on it. or you can invest in a Strong' s Exhaustive concordance and read every verse on Circumcision and it will back up that in the NT " Circumsision" means a person's heart after they get converted the bible taught way....check it out then post next week. I have a business to run, must get some shut eye 4 AM comes early. God Bless.

Rick01, this was part of my extensive research and focus of prayer when I switched from the Protestant wing of Christianity to the Catholic wing of Christianity. I had many questions regarding Baptism. I was still confused why Presbyterians, for example, perform infant baptisms but don't regard it as a sacrament. Baptism, is not something to be tinkered with, nor is it a subjective act. It is indeed, like circumcision under the Old Covenant, a very important part of our Christian walk, and this extends to the children of Christian homes, just as circumcision extends to the children of Jewish homes.

I am not disagreeing with you regarding the steps toward baptism when it comes to someone at the age of reason -- I would 100% agree. Though this doesn't address much with which we disagree.

Most importantly, you didn't answer my question regarding when both of us who happen to be Christians, both pray, both probably study the Bible, and both are madly in love with God, hold differing views on certain passages. How do you think we decide which is right and which is wrong? If you're going by your own interpretation, couldn't it be fallible?

 

[Ricko1]

I agree with you that treating all of scripture as literal is neglecting the case that the Bible is a collection of books written in different genres -- some literal and some symbolic. However, that doesn't mean we can pick and choose which ones we want to be literal and which to be symbolic...which I suspect you agree with me there too.
I believe every word written in the Bible is the truth. Why? simply because I was a skeptic for about a couple years and was thirsty and hungry about what I was taught was it truth,,;Fiction..or something in between. I fasted and prayed and cried to God let me know and make me understand thy word.....and he did..And still does now.
I have many things in my walk with God....Miraculous Healings....Demons cast out of people...Awesome things. If I told you all of it I would be giving myself the Glory..but Our Lord gets the Glory not me...I am a simple nobody who Loves and serves him.


Do you believe these verses contradict one another or compliment one another?



I agree that not everything can or should be taken literally...but the passages meant literally should absolutely be literal. I think it's fair to discuss and look closely at the scriptures to better understand them and study them to grow closer to God, but that doesn't mean the scriptures are subjective.



Amen.



I never disagreed that some passages are symbolic. Though why do you take baptism as symbolic when these passages, especially the gospels, are written in very literally in contrast to, say, Psalm or Numbers which are written in figuratively and poetically?



Rick01, this was part of my extensive research and focus of prayer when I switched from the Protestant wing of Christianity to the Catholic wing of Christianity. I had many questions regarding Baptism. I was still confused why Presbyterians, for example, perform infant baptisms but don't regard it as a sacrament. Baptism, is not something to be tinkered with, nor is it a subjective act. It is indeed, like circumcision under the Old Covenant, a very important part of our Christian walk, and this extends to the children of Christian homes, just as circumcision extends to the children of Jewish homes.

I am not disagreeing with you regarding the steps toward baptism when it comes to someone at the age of reason -- I would 100% agree. Though this doesn't address much with which we disagree.

Most importantly, why do you hold the position that your personal, fallible interpretation of scriptures holds a monopoly on the Holy Spirit?

 

[RosaVera]

I'm glad you brought up this verse because it has been the focal point of many an important discussion about baptism and who should be baptized.

Obviously, there is no passage in scripture that explicitly talks about anyone under the age of reason being baptized. Having said that -- as you know -- there are passages that talk about whole households being baptized (, ), and certainly raises the possibility (some might argue probability) that there were infants or people below the age of reason being baptized.

One passage that holds ground in the case of infant baptism for those coming from a Scripture-Only position is in where it talks about how we have received the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism. Circumcision, of course, is the Jewish ritual of initiation the way Baptism is the Christian ritual of initiation, and Paul links the two. Because of that link, circumcision provides a model for us that can help inform our understanding of how baptism is supposed to work.

If it's the Christian equivalent to circumcision, then we ought to look at how circumcision is administered...it could be administered to adult converts to Judaism who had to have personal faith in the God of Israel, but it could also be given to the infants of those who were Hebrews so that they could share in the blessings of God's covenant -- even before they had a concious understanding. Consequently, the same thing happened with baptism; we can either embrace the Christian faith as adults -- with personal faith in Christ and be baptized -- or we can be baptized as children of believers so that we might share in the New Covenant and its blessings, even before we can understand those. This is why, for instance, in Catholicism, while an infant may be baptized, adults and teenagers aren't baptized instantly because they can, like the Jewish adults, hold a personal faith in Jesus. This is why teens and adults go through RCIC and RCIA before baptism and profess their faith first.

That's why the early Church fathers had an understanding of infant baptism. In fact, there was even a council in the mid 3rd century to address the question of whether you should wait until the 8th day after birth to baptize a baby (this being because circumcision was performed 8 days after birth). However, the reason why they concluded that one shouldn't wait 8 days is because of the infant mortality rate was high -- so they concluded to baptize as soon as possible (though today's infant mortality isn't what it used to be).

Excellent in pointing out that verse though -- thumbs up to you, sir

Growing up in Italy, being born there, i was baptized as soon as possible after birth, but it was custom to be within the first month of the child's life... one of the reason as you pointed out was infant mortality, but another is that one didn't want to take any child out before baptism for fear if something would happen to the child. i am sure now as i understand more, it is similar to what Blessed Mother Mary and Joseph did with our Lord Jesus, and they brought Him to the temple to dedicate baby Jesus to God the Father. Baptism is a most important sacrament because it introduces the child in the world of God, both the parents and the Godparents must be in the faith and believe their role and responsibility, especially in case the parents cannot take care of the child's needs, spiritual first and then physical, then it is the Godparents who are responsible to take care of that... this is beautiful because the child is protected and looked after by two sets of parents responsible for his/her spiritual growth in the faith and love of God. The child is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because all three are God.

 

[Ricko1]

Your dancing around the Biblical truth by inserting things you feel are right rather then things that are Biblical commands.

A baby cannot " Beleive" as Jesus commanded in Mark 16 v 16. Jesus was Specific " He that BELEIVES, And is Baptized....." When I was Baptized at age 3 weeks old in The Catholic Church I did' not even know it happned. So how can I have " Beleived" pray tell?

One of the key reasons baby's do not qualify to be " Beleivers" is because a person also must be old enough to REPENT of their sins. Please read Luke 13 verses 3 &5. Then read the 4 specific things Apostle Peter mentions a person MUST do to be saved and Born Again.....Acts 2 v 38....(1) Repent....(2) Water Baptism in Jesus Name only (3) Your Sins are remitted, Forgiven and forgotton...(4) The person is filled with God' s Gift of The Holy Ghost/ Holy Spirit.

Very simple...fully explained...Documented by All the original Apostles. Case Closed...

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Your dancing around the Biblical truth by inserting things you feel are right rather then things that are Biblical commands.

A baby cannot " Beleive" as Jesus commanded in Mark 16 v 16. Jesus was Specific " He that BELEIVES, And is Baptized....." When I was Baptized at age 3 weeks old in The Catholic Church I did' not even know it happned. So how can I have " Beleived" pray tell?

One of the key reasons baby's do not qualify to be " Beleivers" is because a person also must be old enough to REPENT of their sins. Please read Luke 13 verses 3 &5. Then read the 4 specific things Apostle Peter mentions a person MUST do to be saved and Born Again.....Acts 2 v 38....(1) Repent....(2) Water Baptism in Jesus Name only (3) Your Sins are remitted, Forgiven and forgotton...(4) The person is filled with God' s Gift of The Holy Ghost/ Holy Spirit.

Very simple...fully explained...Documented by All the original Apostles. Case Closed...

That's a nice try, Mr. Rick, but I'm not going to let you off the hook that easy

Baptism, for those under the age of reason, could be compared to what many Protestant churches do which is "baby dedications." A baby can't proclaim his faith for obvious reasons. The sacrament of baptism is expressed multiple times if its importance. Baptism for those at the age of reason must proclaim their faith, just as the Jewish Converts needed to before circumcision.

I haven't much fussed that adults must make their proclamation. Infants, however, you disregard the Jewish model from which the New Covenant adapted.

This is why when a baptized infant reaches the age of concent, he must proclaim his faith in confirmation.

I know you used the argument of your once being a catholic -- perhaps, like many Catholics unfortunately who are brought up in the Church but know nothing of Christianity and their faith -- but I was once a Protestant. I love my Protestant brothers and sisters. They are Christians too, albeit separated from the Church, but many love Christ with all their heart. My concern with Protestantism itself is the chaotic model that anyone can claim authority of what the Holy Spirit is saying...and when that happens, more and more heresies develop -- hence tens of thousands of different denominations who all claim the Holy Spirit is speaking to them. There's something devilish about this -- something prideful, with all due respect of course.

 

[Brother David]

Revealed to me through His Spirit and cross checking verses..

Sounds like "private interpretation again"

 

[Ricko1]

You Sir, respectfully, have no understanding what you are talking about . Should we go by what The RCC teaches? Or should we just go with scriptures, follow what it says, and eliminate arguments on the matter? I know exactly what the Scriptures teach, there is no "Private Interpretation" as you suggest. I teach Bible for those who want to learn. If you don' t agree, I can accept that , but if you want to disagree prove your point by scriptures only. To suggest Infant Baptism was taken from Jewish customs has nothing to do whatsoever with Salvation New Testament Salvation....ZERO. Yes, I am a Former Catholic, My entire Family still is, I still Love all of them. I was educated in Catholic Schools, Was an Alter Boy in the old Latin Mass. I know all about The Catholic Teachings, and their history, and the whole 9 Yards.

I will say this again for the benefit of those who are interested in learning. A Child or Infant can be baptized in a ritual if the parents so desires, but that Baby is not doing the Water Baptism procedure needed to be saved as all sinners need to do. Infant Baptism is comparing Apples with Oranges with The Water Baptism I am referring unto. We are not Jews or are we to follow Jewish Customs the Jewish people practice. Ever read in the Bible, When Jesus died on Calvary, The Veil in the Jewish Temple was ripped from top to bottom? That is when God let it be known..The Old testament was finishrd, and the New Testament Started. We are no longer under Jewish law or
it' s teachings. Finally; I don' t do debates. I use Bible Only as what The Lord told us to do ( John 5 v 39). Stick with scriptures to validate your points and we can banner back and forth. I belong to the same Church still in existence that started in Jerusalem in the Book of Acts. We are not " Protestants". We never protested anything. We are the original church. The Church goes by many various names but we teach scriptures to back up our teachings. If someone can prove for example The Baptism Formula is wrong according to what Apostle Peter taught in Acts, tell me where he was wrong. Peter, The same Apostle Peter The Vatican " claims" is their first pope!!... Sort of Hypocritical is'nt it Bro.?

Let us discuss this scripture for scripture so we are comparing Apples with Apples, and not Church beleifs, Traditions, etc. God Bless..

 

[LysanderShapiro]

You Sir, respectfully, have no understanding what you are talking about . Should we go by what The RCC teaches? Or should we just go with scriptures, follow what it says, and eliminate arguments on the matter? I know exactly what the Scriptures teach, there is no "Private Interpretation" as you suggest. I teach Bible for those who want to learn. If you don' t agree, I can accept that , but if you want to disagree prove your point by scriptures only. To suggest Infant Baptism was taken from Jewish customs has nothing to do whatsoever with Salvation New Testament Salvation....ZERO. Yes, I am a Former Catholic, My entire Family still is, I still Love all of them. I was educated in Catholic Schools, Was an Alter Boy in the old Latin Mass. I know all about The Catholic Teachings, and their history, and the whole 9 Yards.

I will say this again for the benefit of those who are interested in learning. A Child or Infant can be baptized in a ritual if the parents so desires, but that Baby is not doing the Water Baptism procedure needed to be saved as all sinners need to do. Infant Baptism is comparing Apples with Oranges with The Water Baptism I am referring unto. We are not Jews or are we to follow Jewish Customs the Jewish people practice. Ever read in the Bible, When Jesus died on Calvary, The Veil in the Jewish Temple was ripped from top to bottom? That is when God let it be known..The Old testament was finishrd, and the New Testament Started. We are no longer under Jewish law or
it' s teachings. Finally; I don' t do debates. I use Bible Only as what The Lord told us to do ( John 5 v 39). Stick with scriptures to validate your points and we can banner back and forth. I belong to the same Church still in existence that started in Jerusalem in the Book of Acts. We are not " Protestants". We never protested anything. We are the original church. The Church goes by many various names but we teach scriptures to back up our teachings. If someone can prove for example The Baptism Formula is wrong according to what Apostle Peter taught in Acts, tell me where he was wrong. Peter, The same Apostle Peter The Vatican " claims" is their first pope!!... Sort of Hypocritical is'nt it Bro.?

Let us discuss this scripture for scripture so we are comparing Apples with Apples, and not Church beleifs, Traditions, etc. God Bless..

Friend, to begin, going to the Extraordinary Latin Mass, Catholics Schools, and being an Alter Server doesn't lend you full knowledge of Catholic history, Catholic teaching, and the Scriptures...but, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not what you were claiming.

Indeed, we do not go by Mosaic Law anymore as the Hebrews did prior to Christ. Nevertheless, baptism a religious practice under Divine Law and is commanded under the New Covenant (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16, Acts 10:48, Matthew 28:19, Romans 6:3).

I'm not suggesting that baptism as an infant is one's final step to salvation...it's merely the beginning -- albeit, an important beginning -- but only a beginning. One must also believe the Salvation of Grace.

You bring up an important subject...you insist on going by scriptures alone. Granted, I am providing scriptures, but why do you accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura isn't Biblical, so if it were a tradition of God, wouldn't it have to be? Which is the pillar of Truth -- the Church or the Bible?

 

[Ricko1]

What do you mean by " Sola Scripula" ? Scriptures Alone? The answer is YES if we are speaking about going by scriptures to prove why we practice this or that or what we should follow to make certain we are following the exact doctrine as the Original Church Teaches from Scripture. What else do you suggest we all follow?

 

[Ricko1]

One other point you made I agree with...Water Baptism is just the beginning of being saved, but a very important and essential part of the process. If a person does not agree with the method taught...then please tell us how you think they can ever see God one day by being dis obedient to his teachings?

 

[Ricko1]

One other point you made I agree with...Water Baptism is just the beginning of being saved, but a very important and essential part of the process. If a person does not agree with the method taught...then please tell us how you think they can ever see God one day by being dis obedient to his teachings?

Let me also add this since you posed the question...." Should we go by the Church or by the Bible"? Answer: Bible....here is why

God filled The Apostles of Jesus with The Holy Ghost after he ascended back to heaven. (Luke 24 v45-47) Noway would they lie, deceive, or teach falsehood under his Holy Spirit. This is why it is mandatory we put those teachings first. Anybody can start a false church where their personal pet beliefs trumpet The Scriptures by using scriptures out of context, or perverting them to back up the Church they started. Jesup only started ONE CHURCH. So then why do we see thousands of other " Christian" Religions,Denominations, Faiths, and Cults?

 

[Ricko1]

Let me also add this since you posed the question...." Should we go by the Church or by the Bible"? Answer: Bible....here is why

God filled The Apostles of Jesus with The Holy Ghost after he ascended back to heaven. (Luke 24 v45-47) Noway would they lie, deceive, or teach falsehood under his Holy Spirit. This is why it is mandatory we put those teachings first. Anybody can start a false church where their personal pet beliefs trumpet The Scriptures by using scriptures out of context, or perverting them to back up the Church they started. Jesup only started ONE CHURCH. So then why do we see thousands of other " Christian" Religions,Denominations, Faiths, and Cults?

Pardon spelling errors this Galaxy 4 phone is insistent to spell what it wants...I will correct this..

 

[Brother David]

Yes, Jesus did only start ONE Church- A blood-washed Holy Ghost filled Church which is His bride.......The bride is wearing Her husband's NAME........That's why it's important to be buried in the NAME of Jesus Christ

 

[LysanderShapiro]

What do you mean by " Sola Scripula" ? Scriptures Alone? The answer is YES if we are speaking about going by scriptures to prove why we practice this or that or what we should follow to make certain we are following the exact doctrine as the Original Church Teaches from Scripture. What else do you suggest we all follow?

Well, I think we should follow the Word of God (and I think you'd agree as well). The difference is usually we perceive the Word of God to be two different things; perhaps you believe it is the scriptures alone rending the Bible as the exclusive authority of Christian practice -- where as I believe the Word of God is extended to us by the Bible as well as Church authority. The scriptures teach about the Church as the pillar of truth, and it was the trust in the Church's authority via the Holy Spirit that we also trust the canon.

Though the Bible doesn't point to itself as the exclusive authority for Christianity. Christ left us a vehicle for His teaching, and it was the Church.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

One other point you made I agree with...Water Baptism is just the beginning of being saved, but a very important and essential part of the process. If a person does not agree with the method taught...then please tell us how you think they can ever see God one day by being dis obedient to his teachings?

A merciful God wouldn't kick aside someone who wasn't baptized proper. We leave the judgement of our souls to God, and God is merciful. Though it's important to fulfill what we know to be true and not discredit it, especially if it's out of apathy. There are probably many Christians who have died without being baptized (even the thief on the cross who only had a short amount of time after repentance) but Christ said he would be in paradise.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Let me also add this since you posed the question...." Should we go by the Church or by the Bible"? Answer: Bible....here is why

God filled The Apostles of Jesus with The Holy Ghost after he ascended back to heaven. (Luke 24 v45-47) Noway would they lie, deceive, or teach falsehood under his Holy Spirit. This is why it is mandatory we put those teachings first. Anybody can start a false church where their personal pet beliefs trumpet The Scriptures by using scriptures out of context, or perverting them to back up the Church they started. Jesup only started ONE CHURCH. So then why do we see thousands of other " Christian" Religions,Denominations, Faiths, and Cults?

To be fair, I never said "should we go by the Church or the Bible." What I did ask was "Which is the pillar of truth; the Church or the Bible."

The answer is the Church. In 1 Timothy 3:15, it says "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

I absolutely agree with you that the Bible is the compiled book of God-breathed scriptures, and because of this, the Bible should ALWAYS be studied, practiced, and a used in teaching -- 2 Timothy 3:16 talks about how ALL of scripture is profitable in teaching. However, it was through Jesus that He left us ONE CHURCH (as you very clearly and rightly put), and it was that one Church that has compiled the Bible through the Holy Spirit. Anyone who puts trust in the Bible is putting trust in the authority of the Catholic bishops in the 4th century.

You said "This is why it is mandatory we put those teachings first. Anybody can start a false church where their personal pet beliefs trumpet The Scriptures by using scriptures out of context, or perverting them to back up the Church they started. Jesup only started ONE CHURCH."

I couldn't agree more that we must put teachings first. It's through these teachings that has served as a foundation of our faith. But these teachings were given to the Church to pass down to each of us. And the Bible isn't excluded, but it's not secluded either. Had it been secluded, then those before the scriptures had all been written (around 90 AD) would be in severe danger. And those before about the 18th century who couldn't afford a Bible would be in deep trouble too since a Bible was only affordable to the very wealthy (hence why they used to chain the Bibles to the pews and altars -- thieves would steal them and sell them to wealthy lords).

2 Thessalonians 2:15 says "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." This was especially crucial as it was only by word of mouth that so many could learn about the Christian faith.

The ironic part of your statement I quoted is that, while I absolutely agree with you that people can pervert the Church and start their own if they dismiss scripture and teaching, because people dismiss Church authority, it HAS lead to tens of thousands of churches separate from the ONE Christ started, and much of it is from the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura. If any of us can go by our own interpretation of what we alone thing the Holy Spirit is saying, than this can lead to chaos. God isn't a God of chaos.

Can you show me which verse points to itself as the EXCLUSIVE source of Christian practice?

 

[Ricko1]

Yes, Jesus did only start ONE Church- A blood-washed Holy Ghost filled Church which is His bride.......The bride is wearing Her husband's NAME........That's why it's important to be buried in the NAME of Jesus Christ

Amen Brother, Amen!!

 

[Ricko1]

To be fair, I never said "should we go by the Church or the Bible." What I did ask was "Which is the pillar of truth; the Church or the Bible."

The answer is the Church. In 1 Timothy 3:15, it says "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

I absolutely agree with you that the Bible is the compiled book of God-breathed scriptures, and because of this, the Bible should ALWAYS be studied, practiced, and a used in teaching -- 2 Timothy 3:16 talks about how ALL of scripture is profitable in teaching. However, it was through Jesus that He left us ONE CHURCH (as you very clearly and rightly put), and it was that one Church that has compiled the Bible through the Holy Spirit. Anyone who puts trust in the Bible is putting trust in the authority of the Catholic bishops in the 4th century.

You said "This is why it is mandatory we put those teachings first. Anybody can start a false church where their personal pet beliefs trumpet The Scriptures by using scriptures out of context, or perverting them to back up the Church they started. Jesup only started ONE CHURCH."

I couldn't agree more that we must put teachings first. It's through these teachings that has served as a foundation of our faith. But these teachings were given to the Church to pass down to each of us. And the Bible isn't excluded, but it's not secluded either. Had it been secluded, then those before the scriptures had all been written (around 90 AD) would be in severe danger. And those before about the 18th century who couldn't afford a Bible would be in deep trouble too since a Bible was only affordable to the very wealthy (hence why they used to chain the Bibles to the pews and altars -- thieves would steal them and sell them to wealthy lords).

2 Thessalonians 2:15 says "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." This was especially crucial as it was only by word of mouth that so many could learn about the Christian faith.

The ironic part of your statement I quoted is that, while I absolutely agree with you that people can pervert the Church and start their own if they dismiss scripture and teaching, because people dismiss Church authority, it HAS lead to tens of thousands of churches separate from the ONE Christ started, and much of it is from the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura. If any of us can go by our own interpretation of what we alone thing the Holy Spirit is saying, than this can lead to chaos. God isn't a God of chaos.

Can you show me which verse points to itself as the EXCLUSIVE source of Christian practice?

You must always remember The statements made about " The Church" is the same Church I belong unto, and the same church Apostle Paul and the other first century Apostles belonged unto. If you can' t even agree with what Peter and the others taught through the Book of Acts...How then can you even consider quoting what they taught and preached?

 

[Ricko1]

You must always remember The statements made about " The Church" is the same Church I belong unto, and the same church Apostle Paul and the other first century Apostles belonged unto. If you can' t even agree with what Peter and the others taught through the Book of Acts...How then can you even consider quoting what they taught and preached?

About the Bible....The original Church already had all the scriptures. The Catholic Church was the first church to have Bibles printed way after the 4 Th Century. There were no printing presses made to about The 11Th or12th Century. At The Council of Nicea in 325 AD Constantine the Emperor of Rome sat at this council as " Summus Pontifex" ( Pope) I won' t list all the things they agreed to to, but there was a lot of things introduced at this council not biblical or supported by scriptures. One of those was the doctrine of which was later introduced in 431 AD about paying homage to Virgin Mary, and later introducing other false doctrines associated with her "veneration". ( Worship). The fact of the matter and truth a lot of perverting the actual scriptural meanings has taken place since the Original Apostles all died by many Churches. When they found the dead sea scrolls in 1947 in the caves in Israel, it proved The King James Bible had the correct translations in 1611 AD.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

You must always remember The statements made about " The Church" is the same Church I belong unto, and the same church Apostle Paul and the other first century Apostles belonged unto. If you can' t even agree with what Peter and the others taught through the Book of Acts...How then can you even consider quoting what they taught and preached?

Why would I disagree with the scriptures? I think the disagreement you and I have is the interpretation of the scriptures. For instance, I have no doubt that you believe every word of the Bible, but I believe some of what you take from it is a misguided interpretation.

I mean no disrespect. I'm only explaining where I am coming from on this. Lately, there seems to be a sentiment in this forum that is leaning toward Catholicism not even being a Christian faith. I would never discredit protestantism as not being a Christian faith, I just happen to disagree with the overall doctrine, but Protestants are still Christians.