Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do know you're actually misinterpreting the Bible, right??
I don't interpret the Specific teachings of the Church. The Bible comes from the Church, they do that.
If Peter was a pope why did the Catholic Church change the way they baptized?
Because Peter and his successors we're given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The Lord also said that whatever was bound or loosed on earth would also be in Heaven. Do you understand what that means? Jesus also promises that the Gates of Hell would NEVER prevail against it.
They completely made up their own formula!
I don't understand this.
Not only did the Catholic Church change the formula, but they changed the method too!!
The Catholic Church adopted the "sprinkle" method. What's up with that?!?!
I asked you a night or 2 ago how aged, sick, bedridden people were baptized. What if there were no rivers or streams close-by?
Peter ONLY baptized in the name of Jesus!!
It is true that the baptism given by the Disciples narrated in John was a baptism of water only and not of the Holy Spirit; the reason being, the Holy Spirit was not yet given to them until after the Resurrection.
Peter ONLY baptized by submersion!!
Probably, but in there is nothing in Scripture that tells us that Peter baptized at all Your point?
Peter also spoke in tongues!! Do you and the Catholic Church believe in that??
Yes, some do, however it is abused by some, also. Personally, I do not speak in tongues. By the way, Peter also performed miracles, and many others in the CC have performed them and received from them.
Peter clearly preached water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues, for one to receive salvation.
Yes, water Baptism if at all possible, however, it isn't always possible. There is also a Baptism of Desire, in case of an emergency or Baptism of Blood, if someone is martyred in defending the faith or some Christian virtue.
If you're going to make such wild claims about Peter being the first pope, then you need to stick with his teachings!!
I DID!
However, it should be noted that those teaching's of Peter come from the Holy Spirit, not Peter himself.
::Sigh:: As I thought . . . the "precepts and doctrines of men" we were warned about by Jesus. Try getting in touch with the Holy Spirit (Comforter) and query your heart for the real answers. Christ abides with us, Gabriel . . . we do not need the Church to teach us the truth under the New Covenant.
May I ask, respectfully, what denomination fellowship you are from? Just curious because you are clearly quite knowledgeable but often have positions at odds with most mainstream denominations.
No, you are incorrect and evidently afraid to look at the historical truth.
Because of your unwillingness to debate on truth and the facts, why debate at all?
I have looked at the historical truth for myself and I know the RCC has a false version of history that they promote to support their changed doctrine. Since I know the truth there is nothing to debate. Fact's are fact's and you and all your popes cant change them.
August 23, 97 C.E. The pastor of the Church of Smyrna declared that what you believe about God is more important than how you live your faith and it was all down hill from there.
Here is an article about the Church of Smyrna.
Your statement is unsupported. Smyrna Church Era
Here is an article about the Church of Smyrna.
Your statement is unsupported. Smyrna Church Era
Thank you Snowball, but it was a joke, I thought I made that clear, my bad. The whole thread is something of a joke, because the church never disappeared, it just got submerged in institutions of men.
You really should try. "Giggling" is a characteristic of silly schoolgirls, but it is not appropriate for an intelligent adult woman discussing serious matters.
Quote:
You do know you're actually misinterpreting the Bible, right??
Apparently you don't know that he isn't doing any such thing.
Quote:
If Peter was a pope why did the Catholic Church change the way they baptized?
This is not a coherent question. It is indisputable that Scripture shows that Peter was the leader of the apostles. It is also clear from history that Peter would become the leader (that is, the bishop) of the Christian community in Rome. These two facts are not dependent on the way the church baptizes -- but nevertheless the fact remains that the church still baptizes the same way that it always has: with water, and a trinitarian formula.
Quote:
They completely made up their own formula!
You seem to be unaware either of Scripture, or of Catholic practice. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus Christ himself (and I rather hope you have heard of him...) says "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This is precisely how Catholics and Orthodox baptize: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, precisely as we were commanded by our Lord and God Jesus Christ while he was still present on earth. We use no other formula, and we trust in no other gospel than that of Jesus Christ. If you use some other formula, you are the one who has made something up -- and you are disregarding the command of Christ himself.
Quote:
Not only did the Catholic Church change the formula, but they changed the method too!!
The Catholic Church adopted the "sprinkle" method. What's up with that?!?!
What's up is that you are again mistaken. First of all, the method specified by Christ is "with water". The Catholic Church continues to use water. Secondly, we do not "sprinkle", which is an entirely separate action with a different meaning. The method of baptism you are speaking of is called "infusion", or pouring (with "sprkinkling" being properly called "aspersion"). While immersion was the typical method of baptism in the early church, is still used by the Orthodox (whom you never seem to think about...), and is still found in some places among Catholics, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that requires a complete immersion of an entire body. Try this: In Acts 19, how did Paul baptize his jailer and his family in the prison in the dead of night? Do you really think they had a big First-Baptist-Church style tank of water sitting around in the cell???? Furthermore, from the earliest days of the Church, Christian martyrs were baptized in prison, and persons who were sick or dying were also baptized. In neither case would immersion have been possible, and indeed during the early days of Christianity, the method of baptism by infusion even had its own name. It was called baptismus clinicorum (that is, baptism of the sick), and while regarded as unusual, was also considered entirely valid.
Quote:
Peter ONLY baptized in the name of Jesus!!
Are you saying that Peter defied the commandment that Jesus himself gave???? I don't think so!
Quote:
Peter ONLY baptized by submersion!!
The word is "immersion", and you have no evidence for that claim whatsoever.
Quote:
Peter also spoke in tongues!! Do you and the Catholic Church believe in that??
Unlike yourself, we believe what Scripture teaches. In this case, Scripture (Acts 2:7-11) teaches that at Pentecost, the words of Peter and the other apostles were understood by those who heard them. There is a miracle here, but it is a miracle worked so that everyone in the crowd could simultaneously understand the Aramaic-speaking apostles. Scripture is very clear that the miracle affected not so much the speech of the apostles, but the hearing and comprehension of those who were listening to them. If you want to believe that on this occasion, Peter and the other apostles repeated the same message over and over in Greek, Latin, Arabic, all the dialects of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the rest, I would say that you are misinterpreting the passage. On the other hand, if you are actually claiming that Peter barked and babbled the sort of gibberish that passes for "speaking in tongues" in certain ecclesial communities, I would say that there is no reason whatsoever for ANYONE to believe that.
Quote:
Peter clearly preached water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues, for one to receive salvation.
This is utterly false. There is no place in Scripture where Peter ever preaches that people should speak in tongues. Indeed, the only circumstance we have where people speak in tongues and Peter is even present is Acts 10:46, and Peter's response is simply to say that Cornelius's household should be baptized. Furthermore, Peter writes in 1 Peter 3:21 that "baptism now saves you"; he makes no mention there of speaking in tongues.
Quote:
If you're going to make such wild claims about Peter being the first pope, then you need to stick with his teachings!!
If you are going to make such wild claims about Peter generally, you should be more careful about doing so around people who have actually read the Bible, and who know for a fact what it says about the words and actions of Peter.
Fact's are fact's and you and all your popes cant change them.
Yes, facts are facts. One fact is that an apostrophes are not used to make a plural; the plural of "fact" is "facts", not "fact's". Another fact is that apostrophes are used to make contractions; the word "cannot" is contracted as "can't", and not "cant". I mention this only to point out to you that you may wish to reconsider your certainty regarding the correctness of your knowledge. Just as your understanding of how to use apostrophes (which is something most people learn in elementary school) is imperfect, your understanding of ecclesiastical history (which is something most people have never studied thoroughly at all, let alone by an examination of historical records and the writings of the early church fathers) is also highly imperfect. Simply asserting that one knows history does not mean that one really does know the subject, just as spelling the word as "fact's" does not, in fact, make that usage correct.
Last edited by GreenWhiteBlue; 04-11-2014 at 11:10 AM..
Yes, facts are facts. One fact is that an apostrophes are not used to make a plural; the plural of "fact" is "facts", not "fact's". Another fact is that apostrophes are used to make contractions; the word "cannot" is contracted as "can't", and not "cant". I mention this only to point out to you that you may wish to reconsider your certainty regarding the correctness of your knowledge. Just as your understanding of how to use apostrophes (which is something most people learn in elementary school) is imperfect, your understanding of ecclesiastical history (which is something most people have never studied thoroughly at all, let alone by an examination of historical records and the writings of the early church fathers) is also highly imperfect. Simply asserting that one knows history does not mean that one really does know the subject, just as spelling the word as "fact's" does not, in fact, make that usage correct.
Thank you, but I already have one. I also have a coherent faith, a rational mind, and a good education. I am very grateful for that, because it is painfully obvious that not everyone has all of these things...
Thank you, but I already have one. I also have a coherent faith, a rational mind, and a good education. I am very grateful for that, because it is painfully obvious that not everyone has all of these things...
Yes it is true that some are less fortunate than I!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look who's back.
