ECT The Gospel Proper

[Rosenritter]

My source of truth is In Scripture though.
Because the Bible doesn't tell me what happens to someone, who comes to authentic faith, and then suddenly drops dead of a blood clot, before being baptized---but the Church's bishops do, and as I said, the bishops are in the Bible. So I am believing the Bible, when I heed the bishops.

Baptism's been the Church's thing from Day One, and she's never stopped baptizing, with water. We all know that sacraments are a coordination between eternal reality, and the present moment, such that there's a coupling. The water baptism, and the baptism of the Spirit, are coordinated together to indicate one reality, that is both physical and spiritual, temporal and eternal. And, John 3:5 KJV says both.

It doesn't? For those that have faith in Christ, are they Christ's or not?

1 Corinthians 15:22-23 KJV
(22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
(23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

It is unlikely that the malefactor on the cross beside Jesus was baptized (or delivered any sacrament) before he perished. Can Christ's declaration of "thou shalt be with me in Paradise" be used to see the mind and heart of God, or should we interpret that as an exception to the rule?

 

[Rosenritter]

WOW, anything to deflect from the truth.
Do you believe Jesus?
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Paul believed Him.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
Do you see the connection?

... maybe Jesus words only count as applicable for the Jews?

 

[Rosenritter]

Which is completely irrelevant to the issue of a required water ceremony.

It is rather relevant when we are told to judge by one's fruits.

 

[Right Divider]

No, but Peter and John and James the sons of Zebedee, together agreed upon James. This had already occurred by Acts 15.

So Peter was not the supreme authority in Jerusalem? You have a bone to pick with the RCC.

James the Just was not an Apostle.

So a non-apostle took authority over the 12 apostles?

I was only talking about what would today be called the 'Jerusalem diocese.'

By whom?

That church was lost to history, so far as I can tell, once the Romans evicted all Jews from Jerusalem.

What about the RCC claim of an unbreakable succession from Peter onward?

 

[Rosenritter]

Nothing that the bishops teach in matters of faith and morals contradicts Scripture. And so they can't be these 'fierce wolves.' In the light of history, I believe this warning applied first of all to those who rose up teaching that Christ Jesus did Not come in the flesh, but was essentially an apparition, and His crucifixion and Resurrection did not happen like how we read in the Gospel accounts that we have. We know them now as 'docetists' or 'gnostic docetists.' After them, there were all sorts of others who rose up and taught other things contrary to the truth, such as the Arians, and later on, the Protestants also.

What of "no faith is to be kept with heretics" which was used to justify the burning of Jan Huss, for example?

 

[Right Divider]

It is rather relevant when we are told to judge by one's fruits.

Who told YOU to judge the "fruits" of others?

You are vastly confused about the doctrines applicable to the present day.

You are still trying to follow the instructions that God gave to OTHERS.

 

[Rosenritter]

The Bible does not say one way or the other.

Acts 10:44-45 KJV(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
(45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It strongly indicates that Cornelius was not circumcised when they received the Holy Ghost... else why would those "of the circumcision" be amazed if the Holy Ghost was being received by others of the circumcision? But let's read further -

Acts 11:1-3 KJV
(1) And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
(2) And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
(3) Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Would they still be saying this if Cornelius had been circumcised shortly after the Holy Spirit and baptism of water?And how did Peter understand this event?

Acts 11:15-16 KJV
(15) And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
(16) Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Peter interpreted "ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost" as if it should accompany baptism with water, not as if one replaced the other, but as if the one expanded on the other. The physical instance does invoke symbols, but the symbolism is for our benefit and understanding and what God has given us should not be purposely neglected.

If Peter understood that these should be linked (and he did have the benefit of a direct vision) then by what vision should one declare the contrary?

 

[Rosenritter]

Who told YOU to judge the "fruits" of others?

You are vastly confused about the doctrines applicable to the present day.

You are still trying to follow the instructions that God gave to OTHERS.

Jesus told us to judge the fruits of others... but if you do not consider Christ's commands to be applicable to you, by what reason do you judge me by my fruits?

 

[Idolater]

So Peter was not the supreme authority in Jerusalem? You have a bone to pick with the RCC.

Each diocesan bishop has full authority over their own church. The test for the validity of a bishop is whether or not they're in communion with Peter.

So a non-apostle took authority over the 12 apostles?

No.

By whom?

Do you know what a diocese is? It is a unified collection of local parishes within a defined geographical boundary. Once a single congregation within a city/place became too large, as the faith became more and more popular, there arose more and more parishes. This process also necessitated that each bishop had plenty of assistants who could assist them in pastoring their church.

What about the RCC claim of an unbreakable succession from Peter onward?

What about it? James being the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem doesn't conflict with that.

 

[Idolater]

What of "no faith is to be kept with heretics" which was used to justify the burning of Jan Huss, for example?

The Church erred greatly in entangling herself with civil authority in the 4th century. All such evil/wickedness is fruit from this rotten tree, a tree that the Church has since chopped down, ground out the stump, burned the soil, and salted it so that it won't ever germinate, sprout, and grown again.

 

[Rosenritter]

The Church erred greatly in entangling herself with civil authority in the 4th century. All such evil/wickedness is fruit from this rotten tree, a tree that the Church has since chopped down, ground out the stump, burned the soil, and salted it so that it won't ever germinate, sprout, and grown again.

But wouldn't that be a teaching of faith and morals?

Nothing that the bishops teach in matters of faith and morals contradicts Scripture. And so they can't be these 'fierce wolves.'

The point being that the teachings of the bishops (or the pope) in morals can contradict scripture. There's even an example where Joshua had to keep faith with foreigners that had deceived them to enter into a treaty. The church teaching was that it was just and right to betray someone that had kept faith with them. I understand if you declare this wrong now (OK) but that was taught at one time.

 

[Right Divider]

Jesus told us to judge the fruits of others...

No, He did NOT tell YOU that. You try to make yourself one of the twelve apostles... you are NOT one of the twelve apostles.

but if you do not consider Christ's commands to be applicable to you, by what reason do you judge me by my fruits?

I never claimed to judge your "fruits". This, AGAIN, makes you a false accuser and a liar.

Within the body of Christ there is NO "fruit judging". You should join the body of Christ.

 

[Idolater]

But wouldn't that be a teaching of faith and morals?

Politics.

The point being that the teachings of the bishops (or the pope) in morals can contradict scripture. There's even an example where Joshua had to keep faith with foreigners that had deceived them to enter into a treaty. The church teaching was that it was just and right to betray someone that had kept faith with them. I understand if you declare this wrong now (OK) but that was taught at one time.

As I said, these fruit came from a rotten tree. One of the problems the Church had for centuries was the corruption of 'simony,' which is the purchasing of a bishop's seat, up to and including the pope. We never hear about this anymore, and it's because bishops no longer possess or exercise any civil power, so there's no 'demand' for their seats among those who are more interested in political power, than in pastoring Christ's flock.

 

[Right Divider]

Each diocesan bishop has full authority over their own church.

Per your preferred religion.

The test for the validity of a bishop is whether or not they're in communion with Peter.

Per your preferred religion.

No.

Whew!!

Do you know what a diocese is?

A man-made religious invention.

It is a unified collection of local parishes within a defined geographical boundary.

:juggle:

Once a single congregation within a city/place became too large, as the faith became more and more popular, there arose more and more parishes.

Beware of popular religions.

This process also necessitated that each bishop had plenty of assistants who could assist them in pastoring their church.

:dog:

What about it? James being the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem doesn't conflict with that.

Why did Peter vacate the capital of Israel? Wasn't he supposed to feed the sheep?

 

[john w]

Jesus told us to judge the fruits of others... but if you do not consider Christ's commands to be applicable to you, by what reason do you judge me by my fruits?

"Jesus told us to" sell all you have, raise the dead, tell no one that He is the Christ ................................................................................................................................................................................................


Do it.

 

[Rosenritter]

No, He did NOT tell YOU that. You try to make yourself one of the twelve apostles... you are NOT one of the twelve apostles.

I never claimed to judge your "fruits". This, AGAIN, makes you a false accuser and a liar.

Within the body of Christ there is NO "fruit judging". You should join the body of Christ.

Matthew 7:15-16 KJV
(15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
(16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Given that God advocated us to judge teachers by their fruits, if you knowingly reject this standard that more likely places you among "wolves" than "sheep."

 

[Right Divider]

Matthew 7:15-16 KJV
(15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
(16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Given that God advocated us to judge teachers by their fruits, if you knowingly reject this standard that more likely places you among "wolves" than "sheep."

YOU are NOT the target audience for that instruction. You are a poser and a FRAUD!

During this time (Matthew), Jesus was a minister of the circumcision.

 

[glorydaz]

WOW, anything to deflect from the truth.
Do you believe Jesus?
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Paul believed Him.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
Do you see the connection?

Of course I believe Jesus, but I also believe that after His resurrection He appeared to the Apostle Paul with new directions that would apply to all men...not just the Jews.


So why do you keep trying to compare what was written in the gospels to Paul? :idunno:


Do you see Paul claiming baptism is required for salvation?
He merely said some were baptized.

Paul made it clear we believe unto salvation. No kind of water baptism, no circumcision, no obedience to commandments, no confession of sins, no requirements at all except FAITH.

 

[glorydaz]

I disagree. Was Cornelius circumcised?

You don't see something special about Cornelius?

Why did Peter go to Cornelius at all....he was a Gentile dog?

 

[john w]

Matthew 7:15-16 KJV
(15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
(16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Given that God advocated us to judge teachers by their fruits, if you knowingly reject this standard that more likely places you among "wolves" than "sheep."

Continue on with Matthew 8 KJV, will you:?


8 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. 2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.


Do verse 8-show yourself to a Levitical priest, offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony to everyone.

Agreed?