Who founded your church?

[theefaith]

It's using the symbolism of water to show us that God alone saves.

Yes God saves Jesus is the mediator but the church thru the sacraments you must enter to be in the new covenant in communion with God

 

[theefaith]

How would you know all you do is quote your churches doctrines, you know nothing of the things of God, it all about selling a harlot.What do they call people that do that...

I quote scripture
You want dogmatic theology?

 

[CharismaticLady]

How have you been?

So you think Constantine invented Roman Catholic Church?

explain how that he called a council in nicea?

what is a council?
Gathering of the bishops of the church at the approval of the successor of Peter

so you see the bishops and the church already existed!

There is only one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles and their successors is the new covenant body of Christ! Jn 10:16 one fold

Sorry TF, you are not going to like this. But you need to know this.

Before Constantine, Christianity was underground. It was unlawful to be Christian, and Christians were being martyred. The second church age of Smyrna, Rev. 2. Not that long after the death of the apostles, the first century church age of Ephesus, Rev. 2 there were two factions of Christians, a division.The second was the worldly side that became the Roman Church. You know, the one that Tertullian left to go with the Montanists, as leaders of the Roman church were against those who were still filled with the Holy Spirit, calling them heretics, which belief lasted for close to 2000 years. The original was of the Desposyni of Acts 15, the humble true church. James, the head of the head Church in Jerusalem, was a Desposyni, the brother of Jesus. That was the church age of Ephesus. Rev. 2. Constantine made the Roman Church the official church, starting the church age of Pergamos. And eventually killed the last of the Desposyni around the 6th century. Constantine was pagan, but made Christianity legal, so no more Christians were martyred, ending Smyrna. Two emperors later, paganism was outlawed, and all the pagan temples became the first "churches." The beginning of Thyatira. But along with the pagan temples, to help the pagans transition to being Christians, they allowed the garb of the pagan priest and even Christianized their pagan holidays which I really don't mind stealing holidays from Satan and revering Christ - Christmas and Easter. Dec. 25 was the birthday of Zeus, and Easter was relative to Tammuz, son of the sun-god. But the worst was Christianizing the Babylonia goddess and godchild mystery religion that Jezebel of the Old Testament was a high-priestess, thus her name in the letter to Thyatira. The goddess was more revered than her less powerful infant son. At least that part of Thyatira was obliterated by the Reformation, Sardis, though other cessationist doctrines remained, until Philadelphia arose and a very few in the Church kept ALL of the New Covenant.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I agree. The church isn't a denomination. And
On July 16, 1054, Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius was excommunicated, starting the “Great Schism” that created the two largest denominations in Christianity—the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
One of the many religious disagreements between the western (Roman) and eastern (Byzantine) branches of the church had to do with whether or not it was acceptable to use unleavened bread for the sacrament of communion. (The west supported the practice, while the east did not.) Other objects of religious dispute include the exact wording of the Nicene Creed and the Western belief that clerics should remain celibate.

This is almost as silly as church splits over shoe laces, which supposedly have actually happened.

The issues with the East and West that you mentioned were minor in comparison to the MAIN issue of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
However, "Roman" Catholic is not the name of the Church. It is simply, The Catholic Church.

"Roman" or "Latin" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite - and there are about 20 of those that are largely cultural in nature.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry, you are not going to like this.

Before Constantine, Christianity was underground. It was unlawful to be Christian, and Christians were being martyred.

Ummmmm, including a few dozen Popes.
Do your homework . . .

The second church age of Smyrna, Rev. 2. Not that long after the death of the apostles, the first century church age of Ephesus, Rev. 2 there were two factions of Christians, a division.The second was the worldly side that became the Roman Church. You know, the one that Tertullian left to go with the Montanists, as leaders of the Roman church were against those who were still filled with the Holy Spirit, calling them heretics, which belief lasted for close to 2000 years. The original was of the Desposyni of Acts 15, the humble true church. James, the head of the head Church in Jerusalem, was a Desposyni, the brother of Jesus. That was the church age of Ephesus. Rev. 2. Constantine made the Roman Church the official church, starting the church age of Pergamos. And eventually killed the last of the Desposyni around the 6th century. Constantine was pagan, but made Christianity legal, so no more Christians were martyred, ending Smyrna. Two emperors later, paganism was outlawed, and all the pagan temples became the first "churches." The beginning of Thyatira. But along with the pagan temples, to help the pagans transition to being Christians, they allowed the garb of the pagan priest and even Christianized their pagan holidays which I really don't mind stealing holidays from Satan and revering Christ - Christmas and Easter. Dec. 25 was the birthday of Zeus, and Easter was relative to Tammuz, son of the sun-god. But the worst was Christianizing the Babylonia goddess and godchild mystery religion that Jezebel of the Old Testament was a high-priestess, thus her name in the letter to Thyatira. The goddess was more revered than her less powerful infant son. At least that part of Thyatira was obliterated by the Reformation, Sardis, though other cessationist doctrines remained, until Philadelphia arose and a very few in the Church kept ALL of the New Covenant.

Sounds like another ignorant anti-Catholic who read Alexander Hislop's heavily-debunked scck piece, "The Two Babylons" instead of reading history.
And the funniest part is that NONE of this can be substantiated by REAL scholarship . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is the name of the son?

And I've already schooled you on this at LEAST a dozen times. YOUR problem is that you don't understand Biblical language.
"In the name of" simply means, "By the authority of" - and I showed you the following scholarly evidence explaining it . . .

According to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange:
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").

We've all experienced the power of namedropping in our lives. People respect us and our opinions if they believe we are connected to someone with GREATER REPUTATION AND AUTHORITY.

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.

English Reports Annotated - Pages 1505-2672, 1505, page 2048:
...an action on a board given to trustees of an industrial society before the act may, after registration under the act, be brought in the name of the newly -incorporated body.

“In the name of” meaning:

Macmillan Dictionary
1. representing someone or something
2. using the authority given by someone or something

Collins Dictionary
1. in appeal or reference to
2. by the authority of; as the representative of

Idioms.TheReferenceDictionary.com
1. Based on the authority of someone or something. We proclaim these things in the name of God. In the name of King John, I command you to halt.
2. With someone or something as a basis, reason, or motivation.

Thesaurus.com
- through - at the hand of
- supported by - through the agency of
- via - with
- through the medium of
- under the aegis of
- with the assistance of

 

[theefaith]

Sorry TF, you are not going to like this. But you need to know this.

Before Constantine, Christianity was underground. It was unlawful to be Christian, and Christians were being martyred. The second church age of Smyrna, Rev. 2. Not that long after the death of the apostles, the first century church age of Ephesus, Rev. 2 there were two factions of Christians, a division.The second was the worldly side that became the Roman Church. You know, the one that Tertullian left to go with the Montanists, as leaders of the Roman church were against those who were still filled with the Holy Spirit, calling them heretics, which belief lasted for close to 2000 years. The original was of the Desposyni of Acts 15, the humble true church. James, the head of the head Church in Jerusalem, was a Desposyni, the brother of Jesus. That was the church age of Ephesus. Rev. 2. Constantine made the Roman Church the official church, starting the church age of Pergamos. And eventually killed the last of the Desposyni around the 6th century. Constantine was pagan, but made Christianity legal, so no more Christians were martyred, ending Smyrna. Two emperors later, paganism was outlawed, and all the pagan temples became the first "churches." The beginning of Thyatira. But along with the pagan temples, to help the pagans transition to being Christians, they allowed the garb of the pagan priest and even Christianized their pagan holidays which I really don't mind stealing holidays from Satan and revering Christ - Christmas and Easter. Dec. 25 was the birthday of Zeus, and Easter was relative to Tammuz, son of the sun-god. But the worst was Christianizing the Babylonia goddess and godchild mystery religion that Jezebel of the Old Testament was a high-priestess, thus her name in the letter to Thyatira. The goddess was more revered than her less powerful infant son. At least that part of Thyatira was obliterated by the Reformation, Sardis, though other cessationist doctrines remained, until Philadelphia arose and a very few in the Church kept ALL of the New Covenant.

Jn 10:16 says one church

 

[CharismaticLady]

Jn 10:16 says one church

There are many denominations, TF. RCC is the first to break off from the original. And they split again to form the Orthodox denominations keeping the Babylonian goddess and godchild mystery religion. Then the Protestant Reformation formed thousands against the Babylonian inclusion.

If you do nothing else, only pray to the Father in the name of the Son. Not to Mary. She is not the real Mary, mother of Jesus. Especially the apparitions are just angels of light, but are really darkness to get God's people side-tracked.

 

[Renniks]

now we have grace

Right, as opposed to salvation by works.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Right, as opposed to salvation by works.

It depends on how we define grace. @theefaith

Jude 1:4

It is actually divine power to be holy, 2 Peter 1:2-4.

 

[Renniks]

Yes God saves Jesus is the mediator but the church thru the sacraments you must enter to be in the new covenant in communion with God

Says the Bible nowhere. Yes Jesus is the mediator, no, you don't enter through sacraments.
There's only one mediator. Only one person who is the gate to eternal life. Not through any good that we have done, but only through his sacrifice.

 

[Truther]

it must be in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit

No, what is the name of the son?

You don't know?

Do you know anyone else's son's name?

 

[Truther]

And I've already schooled you on this at LEAST a dozen times. YOUR problem is that you don't understand Biblical language.
"In the name of" simply means, "By the authority of" - and I showed you the following scholarly evidence explaining it . . .

According to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange:
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").

We've all experienced the power of namedropping in our lives. People respect us and our opinions if they believe we are connected to someone with GREATER REPUTATION AND AUTHORITY.

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.

English Reports Annotated - Pages 1505-2672, 1505, page 2048:
...an action on a board given to trustees of an industrial society before the act may, after registration under the act, be brought in the name of the newly -incorporated body.

“In the name of” meaning:

Macmillan Dictionary
1. representing someone or something
2. using the authority given by someone or something

Collins Dictionary
1. in appeal or reference to
2. by the authority of; as the representative of

Idioms.TheReferenceDictionary.com
1. Based on the authority of someone or something. We proclaim these things in the name of God. In the name of King John, I command you to halt.
2. With someone or something as a basis, reason, or motivation.

Thesaurus.com
- through - at the hand of
- supported by - through the agency of
- via - with
- through the medium of
- under the aegis of
- with the assistance of

You don't know what the name of the son is either?

What is going on around here?

Is this the Christian twilight zone?

Does anyone on this forum know what the name of the son of God is???

 

[Renniks]

You don't know what the name of the son is either?

What is going on around here?

Is this the Christian twilight zone?

Does anyone on this forum know what the name of the son of God is???

Yeshua.

 

[Truther]

Yeshua.

What(name) do you say over someone when baptizing them?

 

[BreadOfLife]

What(name) do you say over someone when baptizing them?

Go back to post #1169, Einstein.
We've already had this argument on another thread - and you were soundly defeated . . .

“In the name of” the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit simply means “By the Authority of” the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

So, Jesus told His Apostles to Baptize by the Authority of the Triune God (Matt. 28:19).

And in YOUR favorite verse - Acts 2:38 – Peter says that the crowd must be Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. This is by the Authority of Jesus Christ as He told His Apostles back in Matt. 28:19.

I gave you PLENTY of linguistic scholarship on this in post #1169.
I suggest you read it and stop embarrassing yourself . . .

 

[Illuminator]

Says the Bible nowhere. Yes Jesus is the mediator, no, you don't enter through sacraments.
There's only one mediator. Only one person who is the gate to eternal life. Not through any good that we have done, but only through his sacrifice.

The Incarnation, which made the redemption of mankind possible, “glorified” matter and raised it to previously unknown heights. God took on human flesh! All created matter was “good” in God’s opinion (Gen 1:25). Ritual and “physicality” were not abolished by the coming of Christ.

The sacramental principle flows from the Incarnation itself. If matter had nothing to do with grace, then God wouldn't have had to become man. Matter conveys grace often in Scripture: baptism confers regeneration (Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21), Paul’s “handkerchiefs” healed the sick (Acts 19:11-12), as did even Peter’s shadow – which also cast out demons (Acts 5:15-16), and of course, Jesus’ garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7).

Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14). The laying on of hands initiates and brings about ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6), facilitates the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:3), and causes healing (Acts 9:17-18).

Catholics believe that Jesus instituted all the sacraments. read the list here

 

[Renniks]

The Incarnation, which made the redemption of mankind possible, “glorified” matter and raised it to previously unknown heights. God took on human flesh! All created matter was “good” in God’s opinion (Gen 1:25). Ritual and “physicality” were not abolished by the coming of Christ.

The sacramental principle flows from the Incarnation itself. If matter had nothing to do with grace, then God wouldn't have had to become man. Matter conveys grace often in Scripture: baptism confers regeneration (Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21), Paul’s “handkerchiefs” healed the sick (Acts 19:11-12), as did even Peter’s shadow – which also cast out demons (Acts 5:15-16), and of course, Jesus’ garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7).

Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14). The laying on of hands initiates and brings about ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6), facilitates the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:3), and causes healing (Acts 9:17-18).

Catholics believe that Jesus instituted all the sacraments. read the list here

In all those cases, God did the healing, not the hanky or spit or water. Saying laying on hands causes healing is incorrect. God does the healing. The hanky is just a hanky. The oil is just oil. It doesn't have magical power, but God chose to heal those it touched. It's an important distinction, because otherwise people end up worshiping objects, like weeping statues and believing holy water is magical, instead of God. Same with baptism, it has no special power, it's merely pointing to God's power to save.

 

[Behold]

Actually there are many gods.
EX 23:
[3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Those are not really Gods in the sense that they are Literal, or real.

a "god" is a religious device that Man adores as an idol to worship.

this can be money.
it can be Elvis.
it can be "mother earth".


The idea is not to allow something to become more important to you then God, as then you've "Put that before".

 

[Behold]

It is really easy to get this.

You are saying that the church started at Pentecost, and your idea is that the Spirit being poured out is the proof.
So, as i told you, this was already accomplished on the 11 prior to it happening to those Jews during that JEWISH ONLY = feast.

Also, notice that Acts 2:38, is the message that John the Baptist preached to the House of Israel, before Jesus was even baptized or crucified.
So, That is not the Gospel of the Grace of God., but it is all that Peter knew at that time.
God changed his thinking in Acts 10 when he taught Peter that GENTILES would also be saved....
But in Acts 2, Peter had no idea about the "gospel of the Grace of God" as this came from Jesus through PAUL much later.

So, these things matter, as if you dont see the distinctions, you'll run around thinking that Acts 2:38, "repent and get dunked" is the same as "Justification by Faith" that Paul was taught by Christ as the actual Gospel, that he learned much later then Act 2.