Your opinions on baptizing at home.

[packyderms_wife]

[16]Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
[17] And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.
[18] And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
[19] 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,
[20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

In context .... It was the 11 He commanded .. Not Everyone.

actually to get real nit picky here in order for those newly converted disciples, those converted by the apostles, to do as Jesus commanded them they too also have to perform baptisms! He didn't tell them to observe only part of what He commanded but ALL of what He commanded, that includes baptising new converts.

[Fisheater]

actually to get real nit picky here in order for those newly converted disciples, those converted by the apostles, to do as Jesus commanded them they too also have to perform baptisms! He didn't tell them to observe only part of what He commanded but ALL of what He commanded, that includes baptising new converts.

Taken out of context and using One Verse Theology ..... maybe ....

[packyderms_wife]

Taken out of context and using One Verse Theology ..... maybe ....

No I don't think so, what part of "observe all that I have commanded you" do you think doesn't apply to the ENTIRE body of Christ?

K-

[Emily]

The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Catholic Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing

380 A.D. The Latin Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome. He translated into Latin the Old Testament from the Hebrew and the New Testament from Greek. The Latin Vulgate became the Bible of the Western Church until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. It continues to be the authoritative translation of the Roman Catholic Church to this day.

There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul's time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books.

Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397.

This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.



I do not see the Church of Emily in the history here ... So I ask. How can you use and trust a book that was put together by those you so mistrust?

Why do you always have to resort to insults?
Jesus said: John 13:35
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

You can quote the RCC's version of history all you want it still doesn't make it true.

Give it up. You are not going to convince me that the pedophile protecting group of men are those whom Christ turned over His ministry.

Jesus is outside of time and knows the end from the beginning. He would not have seen what the RCC has done and consider them the ones to whom He would entrust His church of love.

If you accept and believe that then that is between you and God.

You will never convince me either by quoting their own writings to try to prove it to others or with your insults.

[Fisheater]

Originally Posted by Emily
No priest, pharisee, sadducee, or any other intercessor is needed any more. Just like none were needed in the Garden of Eden.

So you did not explain this for us ... Could you please ?

[packyderms_wife]

So you did not explain this for us ... Could you please ?

It's very simple when the temple veil was torn we no longer needed a priest to intercede for us!

K-

[Fisheater]

It's very simple when the temple veil was torn we no longer needed a priest to intercede for us!

K-

Really .... Where is that in Scripture ? The Priesthood is cited numerous places in the NT as I have posted . The word "priest" is derive from the Greek presbyeros, or "presbyters" (also translated "elders"). As Emily so kindly pointed out ...

If Jesus is our High Priest .... would that not mean there is a Priesthood ?
1Cor.11

[23]For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

We still have and need priests to make present for us on earth, the true sacrifice offered to God by Jesus on our behalf.

The tearing of the veil in the Temple at the death of Christ was symbolic of the fulfillment of the Old Covenant Temple sacrifices (sacrifices of animal blood made by the Jewish priests to present atonement for their sins); it did not eliminate the New Covenant priesthood.

[packyderms_wife]

Really .... Where is that in Scripture ? The Priesthood is cited numerous places in the NT as I have posted . The word "priest" is derive from the Greek presbyeros, or "presbyters" (also translated "elders"). As Emily so kindly pointed out ...

If Jesus is our High Priest .... would that not mean there is a Priesthood ?
1Cor.11

[23]For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

We still have and need priests to make present for us on earth, the true sacrifice offered to God by Jesus on our behalf.

The tearing of the veil in the Temple at the death of Christ was symbolic of the fulfillment of the Old Covenant Temple sacrifices (sacrifices of animal blood made by the Jewish priests to present atonement for their sins); it did not eliminate the New Covenant priesthood.

Or so the catholic church needs us to believe.

K-

[Theresej]

actually to get real nit picky here in order for those newly converted disciples, those converted by the apostles, to do as Jesus commanded them they too also have to perform baptisms! He didn't tell them to observe only part of what He commanded but ALL of what He commanded, that includes baptising new converts.

There is nowhere in scripture that states the newly converted disciples, converted by the aposltes, also had to perform baptisms.

[Theresej]

It's very simple when the temple veil was torn we no longer needed a priest to intercede for us!

K-

That was the priesthood of the Old Covenant.