Christ vs the anti-Christ: Who is winning?

[Marymog]

I was highlighting how you and another post use the exact same approach to conversation.

My beliefs are the result of thorough scripture study, speaking with God, and some pondering of misc information. I do not find history to be a strong epistemological method, as "history" is the account written by the political victors of any stance and then interpreted from another person's lens. Hence the frequent RCC appeal to history really doesn't sway me.

Most recently: this very post, the lines above and below this question.

Thank you for your opinion.

I find it fascinating that you think your beliefs are valid/true/reliable etc. since they are the result of YOUR thorough study of scripture , YOU speaking with God, and some pondering of misc information....but no one in history ESPECIALLY the CC can sway you on your beliefs.....Fascinating!!! Is that because they didn't study scripture and were not speaking to God and they did not ponder misc. information like you did????

FYI......Soon your historical epistemological method will be history. I suspect people in the future (and now) will not find YOUR historical epistmoligacal method very "strong" either since you look at it thru your own lens instead of theirs.

But I suspect your "lens" is nice and clean and every Christian Theologian in HISTORY.....Well...... their lenses are smudged and dirty.

Fascinating theory......Why do you think so highly of yourself and so little of others?

Curious Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Thank you for your opinions as well here, Mary.

Thank you for your opinion.

I find it fascinating that you think your beliefs are valid/true/reliable etc. since they are the result of YOUR thorough study of scripture , YOU speaking with God, and some pondering of misc information....but no one in history ESPECIALLY the CC can sway you on your beliefs.....Fascinating!!! Is that because they didn't study scripture and were not speaking to God and they did not ponder misc. information like you did????

No sinner is my God. Only God is my God.

FYI......Soon your historical epistemological method will be history. I suspect people in the future (and now) will not find YOUR historical epistmoligacal method very "strong" either since you look at it thru your own lens instead of theirs.

If any person choose to listen solely to me and make me their god, then such a person is in DESPERATE need of repentance. They should only worship the God, not me. They should know Him for themselves, not just because I told them.

But I suspect your "lens" is nice and clean and every Christian Theologian in HISTORY.....Well...... their lenses are smudged and dirty.

And you would be wrong with suspension. I readily acknowledge that I still have much still to learn, and am a vessel of God in the making (present tense).

More snark^.

Fascinating theory......Why do you think so highly of yourself and so little of others?

I think most highly of God. Sinners are sinners.

 

[Marymog]

Thank you for your opinions as well here, Mary.

No sinner is my God. Only God is my God.

If any person choose to listen solely to me and make me their god, then such a person is in DESPERATE need of repentance. They should only worship the God, not me. They should know Him for themselves, not just because I told them.

And you would be wrong with suspension. I readily acknowledge that I still have much still to learn, and am a vessel of God in the making (present tense).

More snark^.

I think most highly of God. Sinners are sinners.

Thank you. I agree with you.....You have much to learn.

 

[tzcho2]

Hi,

I never said that the word 'symbolizes' is 500 years old. I said your theory is that old.....stop twisting my words.

Mary

I never twisted your words, and what I state to you does not come from personal opinion, it is what the Word of God states & what believers understand. Problem is for you , only knowing what Rome has taught you, can't understand from the correct understanding because it is so foreign to you. In none of my posts have I been giving you my personal opinion, I have right along been either paraphrasing or outright quoting scripture to you. It is from the Word of GOD. No traditions of men aka--not from the Rcc.
The physical baptism itself doesn't cleanse us of our sins, and it doesn't provide of a method salvation. Sorry but you miss the True meaning quite repeatedly. The baptism is a symbolic metaphor as the scripture stated, for the washing away of by the blood of Jesus cleanses us of our sins. We receive salvation by the grace of GOD through our faith alone in Jesus finished work on Calvary. Jesus payed the price TOTALLY , ONCE and FOR ALL. There is no need for any other "works" or "sacrifice" because Jesus paid it ALL.
Colossians 2:14 "14 having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, TRIUMPHING over them by the CROSS."…

The immersion baptism Jesus had from John, was given to us as the example we are to follow & it represents our carnal / sinfull natural man dying with Him and being resurrected with Him unto eternal life through Christ Jesus by the Holy Spirit which indwells the believers at the moment that we believe in Jesus as Savior & Lord, but that is only possible if we don't supplant HIM by believing we need Jesus PLUS something else to save us, like water baptism which is in the category of "works".
When people learn only religious traditions of men , the have not received the new heart so as to receive the Truth , just as the pharisees that couldn't hear Jesus's teachings, neither can those taught by man- made Religious Traditions of the RCC.
All I see in your posts is a regurgitate the wrong interpretations of scriptures even when you quote the word of God you run it through your rcc filter.
The unteachable spirit of the rcc is always at odds with the what is taught through the Holy Spirit in God's word because it has not received the Holy Spirit & follows the rcc teachings as superior to the Word of God. Rcc preaches a counterfeit to Christian doctrines, counterfeit to salvation, a counterfeit interpretation of scripture and is full of self-pride because it's lifted itself up as a substitute divine authority found only in the Word of God & in the heavenly Father's only begotten beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ whose been given the name above all names-- I repeat ALL names.
Seems no matter how many times people explain the baptism ,the blindness remains.

 

[tzcho2]

The bible is silent on "infant" baptism but it does say that entire households were baptized. Do you think there were any "infants" in a household in the 1st Century? Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him....Also, Jesus said Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Why are you refusing to let Jesus children come to Him when the NT Christians practiced opposite of your opinion?

If the CC is not The Church then which Church is The Church spoken of in Scripture??

Curious Mary

THe bible isn't silent on infant baptism--There are none in the Bible. It was disciples of Jesus that got baptized.
Why the need for you to put words in Jesus mouth?
He said let them come to me, --He didn't say let me baptize these children. This is how Rome adds to scripture for their agenda. They have taught you wrongly and it shows, painfully.

 

[Marymog]

I never twisted your words, .....

Yes you did twist my words. Here is what I said: QUOTE: Your "symbol" teaching is about 500 years old.

Stop being dishonest....

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Thank you. I agree with you.....You have much to learn.

Only a fool thinks they know every thing :)

 

[Marymog]

I never twisted your words, and what I state to you does not come from personal opinion, it is what the Word of God states & what believers understand......

Right.....;) It's not your personal opinion? Is that because God talked to you directly???

Which "believers" are you talking about? Anyone that agrees with YOU???? Soooooo if I don't agree with what YOU and your ilk believe....I am a non-believer??? fascinating....

That makes some of your Protestant friends non-believers also since they agree with some Catholic/Orthodox teachings.

It is hard to take you serious when you make such disingenuous statements.

 

[tzcho2]

Yes you did twist my words. Here is what I said: QUOTE: Your "symbol" teaching is about 500 years old.

Stop being dishonest....

No dishonesty on my part nor was I "twisting scriptures " or following a theory - all as you accused me. I copied and pasted the scripture as it was.
You just didn't like the scripture I posted because Paul literally said in Romans "symbolizes" & that it was in the original greek text , it wasn't a 500 yr old teaching at all, it was exactly what the scripture stated from when it was written originally by Paul. It was what the Bible says in black and white, it was not taught to me by Protestant men.
You didn't like it because it is the opposite of what you keep trying to promote. It is also not my "theory" it was LITERALLY just the scripture & then me agreeing with it. Besides the fact Baptism in the Bible is never described as a sprinkling of water on infants!
This was your post that you came back with accusing me of twisting scripture:

"Nice twisting of Scripture. Your "symbol" teaching is about 500 years old. You are following the tradition of Protestant men. I am sure there is no way to change your mind on that passage so we should look at other passages concerning baptism.
Get up, be baptized and wash your sins..... If ones sins are washed away, wouldn't they be saved?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”....Unless you are born of water and Spirit (which is what happens in baptism) you can't go to heaven. Symbolic? Hmmmm.....horrible theory and horrible opinion
Writings from the 1st and 2nd century Christians DISAGREE with your THEORY. (Hermas, Justin Martyr, Tertullian)
Sooooo who should I believe? You and your opinion that you have presented 2,000 years after the death of the last Apostle or the people who lived in the time of the Apostles? I think you know whom I choose.....;)
Have you read what the Didache says about baptism? Mary"

[/SIZE]

 

[Marymog]

THe bible isn't silent on infant baptism--There are none in the Bible. It was disciples of Jesus that got baptized.
Why the need for you to put words in Jesus mouth?
He said let them come to me, --He didn't say let me baptize these children. This is how Rome adds to scripture for their agenda. They have taught you wrongly and it shows, painfully.

Hey dodgeball you didn't answer my questions: Do you think there were any "infants" in a household in the 1st Century? Why are you refusing to let Jesus children come to Him when the NT Christians practiced opposite of your opinion? If the CC is not The Church then which Church is The Church spoken of in Scripture??


FYI......The bible IS silent on infant baptism.....There is not ONE passage in scripture that says they DID or DID NOT baptize infants. Please show me one passage that talks about INFANTS being baptized....good luck.

If you knew scripture you would know that in the NT CIRCUMMSISSION is equated to BAPTISM.

If you knew your own Christian history you would know that the debate the early Christians has was not whether they should or should not baptize infants it was how SOON they should baptize them.

Since you don't know scripture OR your own Christian history you reject the teachings of Scripture and accept the 500 year teaching of Protestant men.

Jesus said baptize ALL, not just adults or children of a certain age.......He said ALL....You say SOME....Your opinion is OPPOSITE of what Scripture says.

You can twist scripture all you want....INFANTS are part of ALL and they are part of entire FAMILIES that were baptized in Scripture.

You can pretend that your Christian history started 500 years ago and follow those men if you choose....

Mary

 

[tzcho2]

Right.....;) It's not your personal opinion? Is that because God talked to you directly???

Which "believers" are you talking about? Anyone that agrees with YOU???? Soooooo if I don't agree with what YOU and your ilk believe....I am a non-believer??? fascinating....

That makes some of your Protestant friends non-believers also since they agree with some Catholic/Orthodox teachings.

It is hard to take you serious when you make such disingenuous statements.

It's not my personal opinion because it comes directly from the Word of God as it is written. It isn't me parroting the teachings or traditions of men.
Protestant, born again believers , who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God & take it as it is written in context.

 

[Marymog]

No dishonesty on my part nor was I "twisting scriptures " or following a theory - all as you accused me. I copied and pasted the scripture as it was.
You just didn't like the scripture I posted because Paul literally said in Romans "symbolizes" & that it was in the original greek text , it wasn't a 500 yr old teaching at all, it was exactly what the scripture stated from when it was written originally by Paul. It was what the Bible says in black and white, it was not taught to me by Protestant men.
You didn't like it because it is the opposite of what you keep trying to promote. It is also not my "theory" it was LITERALLY just the scripture & then me agreeing with it. Besides the fact Baptism in the Bible is never described as a sprinkling of water on infants!
This was your post that you came back with accusing me of twisting scripture:
[/SIZE]

Yes you did twist my words. Here is what I said: Your "symbol" teaching is about 500 years old.

DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU ACCUSED ME OF SAYING?????

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

It's not my personal opinion because it comes directly from the Word of God as it is written. It isn't me parroting the teachings or traditions of men.
Protestant, born again believers , who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God & take it as it is written in context.

Yup....and your personal opinion (which is not a personal opinion) is opposite of other peoples personal opinion (which is not a personal opinion) but your personal opinion (which is not a personal opinion) is right because you have context and they don't.......

Sooooo which "personal opinion" that comes "directly from the word of God as it is written" should I believe??? YOURS??? The CC? The Baptist Church?? The Mormons may have gotten it right in their personal opinion....;)

I agree, you are not parroting the teachings or traditions of men.......You are reading the bible and God is telling YOU and only YOU what it means.....everyone else is wrong because you have context and they don't.....

You are ONE of THOUSANDS of men who have been guided by the Holy Spirit, taken the word of God as it is written, put it in context and POOF.....your right in your interpretation and everyone else is wrong....Fascinating.

How does everyone come up with different interpretations if it is sooooo easy to do???? Weird....maybe it's not as easy as you THINK it is.

You and your Protestant ilk can't even agree on the "context" of Scripture soooooo please re-evaluate your theory....It's hasn't worked for 500 years. That is why the Protestant Church started splintering with the first great Protestant: Martin Luther. Even his own students disagreed with his "context" of Scripture so they broke away from him and started their own "church" that had proper "context".....

But you probably didn't know that since you don't know your own Christian history.

 

[tzcho2]

Hey dodgeball you didn't answer my questions: Do you think there were any "infants" in a household in the 1st Century? Why are you refusing to let Jesus children come to Him when the NT Christians practiced opposite of your opinion? If the CC is not The Church then which Church is The Church spoken of in Scripture??

FYI......The bible IS silent on infant baptism.....There is not ONE passage in scripture that says they DID or DID NOT baptize infants. Please show me one passage that talks about INFANTS being baptized....good luck.
If you knew scripture you would know that in the NT CIRCUMMSISSION is equated to BAPTISM.
If you knew your own Christian history you would know that the debate the early Christians has was not whether they should or should not baptize infants it was how SOON they should baptize them.Since you don't know scripture OR your own Christian history you reject the teachings of Scripture and accept the 500 year teaching of Protestant men.
Jesus said baptize ALL, not just adults or children of a certain age.......He said ALL....You say SOME....Your opinion is OPPOSITE of what Scripture says.You can twist scripture all you want....INFANTS are part of ALL and they are part of entire FAMILIES that were baptized in Scripture.
you can pretend that your Christian history started 500 years ago and follow those men if you choose....Mary

That is very deceptive & trying to manipulate the truth saying that the Bible is silent on infant baptism, that's like saying it's silent about giraffes--There is no teaching of infant baptism-- because that is a FALSE TEACHING that was Added By Rome, one of many false teachings they added as well as the worst is the FALSE Gospel they preach.
It is funny M how you try to steal my words and falsely accuse me of saying the opposite of scripture -- when in fact that is an obvious lie by you.
Anyone can follow the posts I have made and track that I have simply stood consistently by what is in the word of God only and consistently denounced your man-generated rcc religion's teachings.
I've given you the one Gospel of Jesus Christ - is by Grace , through Faith alone in Jesus finished work on the Cross----over and over & I have pointed to obeying the instructions only found in the Divine authority of the Word of God.
This is a kicking the dust off my sandals moment.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Yup....and your personal opinion (which is not a personal opinion) is opposite of other peoples personal opinion (which is not a personal opinion) but your personal opinion (which is not a personal opinion) is right because you have context and they don't.......

Sooooo which "personal opinion" that comes "directly from the word of God as it is written" should I believe??? YOURS??? The CC? The Baptist Church?? The Mormons may have gotten it right in their personal opinion....;)

I agree, you are not parroting the teachings or traditions of men.......You are reading the bible and God is telling YOU and only YOU what it means.....everyone else is wrong because you have context and they don't.....

You are ONE of THOUSANDS of men who have been guided by the Holy Spirit, taken the word of God as it is written, put it in context and POOF.....your right in your interpretation and everyone else is wrong....Fascinating.

How does everyone come up with different interpretations if it is sooooo easy to do???? Weird....maybe it's not as easy as you THINK it is.

These are excellent questions, one that everyone ought to ponder. How does each person know that they are understanding scripture correctly?

You'll find that if you come to understand that about yourself, it brings much greater self knowledge. Listening to other people's answers also greatly helps understands them. For example, Mary's answer to that is to rely on historical accounts XYZ. My answer is to get on your knees and ask God. Other people have other answers too.

 

[Nancy]

Mary, I have shared my perspective constructively. Offered helpful tips on talking about Christ, and been respectful on you and your beliefs.
I am sorry it upsets you that 1) I am not Catholic, and 2) I am also attacked at length by certain individuals that just believe nonsense about everyone else's faith. Such attacks were not my choice, nor am I responsible for that person's actions.

Let us move forward without snark, and with real respect.

Jane, I have not found a nasty post from you yet. You will know them by their fruits and also if we have love one for another. God Bless you! You are a kind and gentle spoken woman and I respect you for that.

 

[Nancy]

These are excellent questions, one that everyone ought to ponder. How does each person know that they are understanding scripture correctly?

You'll find that if you come to understand that about yourself, it brings much greater self knowledge. Listening to other people's answers also greatly helps understands them. For example, Mary's answer to that is to rely on historical accounts XYZ. My answer is to get on your knees and ask God. Other people have other answers too.

AMEN!

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Jane, I have not found a nasty post from you yet. You will know them by their fruits and also if we have love one for another. God Bless you! You are a kind and gentle spoken woman and I respect you for that.

Thank you, that means a lot, specially coming from you.

 

[Nancy]

Thank you, that means a lot, specially coming from you.

Lol, yes...in the very beginning I did judge you and your doctrines, but the Lord has brought me a very looooong way's since last April. To me, I find that you do exhibit Gods fruit and, we have our core beliefs in place so...love you sister. :)

 

[tzcho2]

Jane, I have not found a nasty post from you yet. You will know them by their fruits and also if we have love one for another. God Bless you! You are a kind and gentle spoken woman and I respect you for that.

Better be careful who you sanction Nancy, personally, I've known some lovely kind pagans, but they were not Christians though they could speak sweetly.
Jane Doe is trying to legitamize mormonism on this forum which is to set's a trap for people to be deceived by it. It is a counterfeit that calls itself Christian & Joseph Smith was a false prophet & a seducer of many women.