What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Truther]

If that's true (and I am not agreeing that it is), why is that a disqualifier to canonicity?

I don't want a self contraditing Bible, nor did they.

Hard to get folks to believe in.

 

[Truther]

What does, “In the name of” mean, Einstein?

Here is the Bible explanation...


....In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

...that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.

18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.


...SAYING the name.

 

[RedFan]

I don't want a self contraditing Bible, nor did they.

Hard to get folks to believe in.

But there are LOTS of contradictions in the Bible. Like whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). Like whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or only one (Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27). Like whether the transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1-2), or eight days later (Luke 9:28). Like whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Samuel 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Samuel 21:12). Like whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chronicles 2:13-15) or eight (1 Samuel 16:10-11). Like whether Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign (2 Kings 8:26) or forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2). Like whether Solomon had 4,000 horse stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25) or 40,000 (1 Kings 4:26). Like whether Moses’ sending spies into Canaan was suggested by God (Numbers 13:1-2,) or by the people (Deuteronomy 1:22). Like whether Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6) or through Nathan (Luke 3:31). Like whether Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9), or told her not to (John 20:17).

None of these writings are

Hard to get folks to believe in.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Because the seven books that you are talking about contradict the others.

WRONG.

The 7 Deuterocanonical Books that your Protestant Fathers removed from the Canon are referenced some 200 rimes in the New Testament.

Note the following examples:

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

Show me contradictions from EACH Book, if that is your argument . . .

 

[JBO]

I do believe JBO, that there is sufficient support for the Eucharist as the CC teaches it.

Read John 6:53

The word EAT, in this particular case, means to chew.

Seems really literal to me.
Why wouldn't it be?

Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY, which will be given up for you.
AS He held the bread.
And, indeed, the next day His body was broken and given up.

​

Strong's Concordance esthió: to eat​ Original Word: ἐσθίω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: esthió Phonetic Spelling: (es-thee'-o) Definition: to eat Usage: I eat, partake of food; met: I devour, consume (e.g. as rust does).

part 1 of 2

Wrong, the DENIAL of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is a man made tradition. It contradicts John 6. You are forced to DENY the unanimous teachings of the Early Church Fathers that went unchallenged for centuries. Furthermore, within 65 years after Luther's nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "This Is My Body", revealing the chaos and confusion resulting from "Bible alone" theology. And you are forced to DENY the numerous Eucharistic miracles that occur even to this day. DENY, DENY, DENY. The reality of the Real Presence requires supernatural faith, that apparently, you don't want.

Eucharistic Index - The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Introduction to the Eucharist, the Eucharist in Scripture, the Eucharist and Vatican II, Eucharistic Miracles, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, and evidence proving that the Early Christians believed in the Real Presence.

www.therealpresence.org

The seven great "I AM"s in John's gospel are found in John 6:35; 9:12; 10:9; 19:11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:5. I don't think any of those should be taken as literal descriptions of the physical being of Jesus. But of course you are free to view them all as you wish.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Here is the Bible explanation...

....In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

...that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.
18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

...SAYING the name.

WRONG again . . .

As I schooled you before - linguistic, Scriptural and historical scholars agree -
From Macmillan Dictionary:
1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - They said they came “in the name of peace.”

From Cambridge Dictionary:
1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - "Open up in the name of the law" before they broke the door down.

From Thesaurus.com:
“In the name of” synonyms
1. THROUGH
2. THROUGH the agency of
3. Under the AUTHORITY of

From english.stackesxhange.com:
What does “in the name of…” actually mean?
Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding:
Old English nama, noma "name, reputation," from Proto-Germanic *namon
(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"), from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").

In ALL cultures, people of authority have ALWAYS lent their REPUTATION and their authority to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations.

The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the REPUTATION and AUTHORITY of another person.

Here us an example from classic literature:
Victor Hugo's “Dramas” 1519, page 364:

Richard Varney, in the name of God and Saint George we dub thee knight!”

This doesn’t state God’s “Singular name” as YOU keep insisting it must.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Like I said Bread....I won't be debating with you.
I'm not too sure God is happy about all this debating.

What He’s NOT happy about is people perverting His truth and telling whoppers about His Church.

I WILL discuss important topics, which to me are - maybe - 3:
Eternal Security and how its misunderstood.
Incorrect statements made about the CC.
Calvinism.

So far – you’ve FALIED to name one . . .

As you know from years past....I don't like the method you use too much.
But to each our own.

Every person I’ve met on this forum who doesn’t like my posts is usually at odds with the Church. But they can never seem to explain WHY . . .

 

[RedFan]

Every person I’ve met on this forum who doesn’t like my posts is usually at odds with the Church. But they can never seem to explain WHY . . .

I can explain why, for myself only. Your tone! Don't be so strident in your attacks on others who disagree with you. All of us can err. (That goes for the leadership of the RCC.)

 

[BreadOfLife]

I read your post on Epiphanus.
It's not enough and it doesn't really say too much.
Another member sent me a lot of stuff that I printed out.

It says PLENTY to a person who is listening.
It doesn't say much to a person who has already decided NOT to listen . . .

You made a statement about early writings and councils that didn't sound right....
it could have been the way you wrote it --- I know you're very knowlegeable.

As to me being confused....
As I said, I'm not planning to learn from you and I'm probably lacking in some knowledge.
Spiritual Pride....maybe; after all the dumb stuff I read at times.

Your comment above in RED perfectly encapsulates your spiritual pride,

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus said many things we pay little attention to.
He also said we should be of one mind.
You're a tough cookie Bread.
But I know we agree on more than you may think.

No - I just won’t tolerate people misrepresenting the Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I can explain why, for myself only. Your tone! Don't be so strident in your attacks on others who disagree with you. All of us can err. (That goes for the leadership of the RCC.)

As I said before - I'm fine with those who simiply disagree with the Church.
I won't tolerate people who misrepresent what the Church teaches and believes.

If that offends you - then don't misrepresent what the Church teaches or believes and I won't have to be "strident" . . .

 

[RedFan]

As I said before - I'm fine with those who simiply disagree with the Church.
I won't tolerate people who misrepresent what the Church teaches and believes.

If that offends you - then don't misrepresent what the Church teaches or believes and I won't have to be "strident" . . .

I don't think I have ever misrepresented what the Church teaches. (You'll tell me if I'm wrong about this.)

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't think I have ever misrepresented what the Church teaches. (You'll tell me if I'm wrong about this.)

I didn't say you did.
So, you shouldn't worry about my "strident" responses to others . . .

 

[Athanasius377]

Not true.

That doesn't answer the question. Where is Mary's body??? Did those present, Apostles or not, hide it??? Do you have a "plausible" answer aside from your speculation??
Why is there no mention of her body in a gravesite or tomb where Mary was allegedly buried anywhere in early church history?

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 – Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 – Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 – Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 – Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 – when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

Rev. 12:1 – we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 – Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

Let’s remember, the Assumption is a Romish Dogma, meaning that it must be believed in pain of mortal sin. There in lies the problem. The Assumption at best is a pious opinion. To believe or not believe is not necessary for salvation.

 

[marks]

Note the following examples:

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Hebrews 11:35 KJV
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

Non-specific. And there is no need to look further than this passage to find it in the KJV.

1 Kings 17:23 KJV
And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth.

Of course there are other examples.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

Isaiah 59:17 KJV
For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.

Wisdom 5:17-20
The Lord will take his zeal as his whole armor,
and will arm all creation to repel his enemies;
18 he will put on righteousness as a breastplate,
and wear impartial justice as a helmet;
19 he will take holiness as an invincible shield,
20 and sharpen stern wrath for a sword,
and creation will join with him to fight against the madmen.

Ephesians 6:14-17 KJV
14) Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15) And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16) Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17) And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

It looks like Paul has more in common with Isaiah than this other book.

Much love!

 

[RedFan]

I didn't say you did.
So, you shouldn't worry about my "strident" responses to others . . .

I don't have to be the brunt of your stridency in order to decry it.

 

[Truther]

But there are LOTS of contradictions in the Bible. Like whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). Like whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or only one (Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27). Like whether the transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1-2), or eight days later (Luke 9:28). Like whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Samuel 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Samuel 21:12). Like whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chronicles 2:13-15) or eight (1 Samuel 16:10-11). Like whether Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign (2 Kings 8:26) or forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2). Like whether Solomon had 4,000 horse stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25) or 40,000 (1 Kings 4:26). Like whether Moses’ sending spies into Canaan was suggested by God (Numbers 13:1-2,) or by the people (Deuteronomy 1:22). Like whether Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6) or through Nathan (Luke 3:31). Like whether Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9), or told her not to (John 20:17).

None of these writings are

Those are not contradictions but different views of events. Sometimes it’s the same event with a different perspective as reporters are over a particular play of a football game.. If you believe the Bible contradicts itself, then you don’t believe the Bible at all. You have a quasi fake belief. I would not follow anything that is called the word of God that is full of contradictions. There’s explanations for everything. One thing for sure, because there are different views written in the Bible of events then it shows it was not plagiarized.

 

[Truther]

WRONG.

The 7 Deuterocanonical Books that your Protestant Fathers removed from the Canon are referenced some 200 rimes in the New Testament.

Note the following examples:

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

Show me contradictions from EACH Book, if that is your argument . . .

Lol

The apocrypha man…

 

[Truther]

WRONG again . . .

As I schooled you before - linguistic, Scriptural and historical scholars agree -
From Macmillan Dictionary:
1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - They said they came “in the name of peace.”

From Cambridge Dictionary:
1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - "Open up in the name of the law" before they broke the door down.

From Thesaurus.com:
“In the name of” synonyms
1. THROUGH
2. THROUGH the agency of
3. Under the AUTHORITY of

From english.stackesxhange.com:
What does “in the name of…” actually mean?
Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding:
Old English nama, noma "name, reputation," from Proto-Germanic *namon
(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"), from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").

In ALL cultures, people of authority have ALWAYS lent their REPUTATION and their authority to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations.

The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the REPUTATION and AUTHORITY of another person.

Here us an example from classic literature:
Victor Hugo's “Dramas” 1519, page 364:

Richard Varney, in the name of God and Saint George we dub thee knight!”

This doesn’t state God’s “Singular name” as YOU keep insisting it must.

And that everyone, is how a man talks himself out of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins.
Mass commentary. Read it and weep.

 

[RedFan]

Those are not contradictions but different views of events. Sometimes it’s the same event with a different perspective as reporters are over a particular play of a football game.. If you believe the Bible contradicts itself, then you don’t believe the Bible at all. You have a quasi fake belief. I would not follow anything that is called the word of God that is full of contradictions. There’s explanations for everything. One thing for sure, because there are different views written in the Bible of events then it shows it was not plagiarized.

If you think that, then you must think Jesus's command of baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19) doesn't contradict Peter 's admonition to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38).