Please continue to post catechisms. I will remember you in my prayers

No, What makes a baptism valid is the authority given to someone by Jesus Christ. We don't accept your baptisms because you have no authority to baptize, along with the fact that most Christian denominations don't properly do the baptism in general (They don't do it with full immersion). Added on to the fact that infant baptism is a mockery to God and the atonement of Jesus Christ. The trinitarian view of God (3 persons 1 being) is not found in the Bible. No verse describes God as 3 persons 1 being in the Old or New Testament, if God was like that then wouldn't you think it would have been explicitly mentioned? It doesn't say that and no honest reading of the Bible would lead you to conclude that God is 3 persons 1 being and every Biblical scholar of all denominations, including Catholics, agrees with that and I am more than happy to provide quotes from Catholic scholars that say as such. The Bible claims Jesus Christ is Lord (Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11) and the Son of God (Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, John 10:36, John 20:31, Acts 9:20), He is our mediator with God (1 Timothy 2:5), He said that God the Father is greater (John 14:28) and that God was his God (John 20:17), He wanted us to be one with Him and God as they are with each other (John 17:21-23). Paul very clearly tells us that to us there is one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:6). No where in the Bible does it describe God and Jesus Christ like how you all do and there is no verse in the bible to back up your pagan belief and to explain it you have to use sources that came centuries later. It’s not in the Bible, at no point did Jews believe in some 3 person 1 being “god” and isn’t something taught and/or defined by Christians for centuries. That also goes for original sin, it is nothing but a false teaching that came later. Also, John the Baptist was the one who would have started or introduced baptism if you are going purely off the Bible, not Jesus Christ. Like that is just Bible 101.

@anthonyjaimesnortje6501

7 ай бұрын

Be quiet, Heretic. the grown ups are talking.

@dylanwilliams2202

7 ай бұрын

@@anthonyjaimesnortje6501 Where? Because all I see is an ignorant child commenting. You see child, if you are going to comment something then you should comment something productive and not "Nuh uh" because that doesn't mean anything.

@anthonyjaimesnortje6501

7 ай бұрын

@@dylanwilliams2202 well we watched the same video didn't we? so if you don't under understand because your cult killed all your critical thinking from a young age then that's on you buddy. that's probably the same reason you take the Bible at face value. you are literally using the same arguments as muslims and then you wanna pretend like we're all Christians. I pray that the Holy Spirit guides you to the true Christ that saves.

@davitz77

7 ай бұрын

@@dylanwilliams2202 I trust the early Christians, ordained by the Apostles and their successors like Saints: Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyprian, Theophilus, (to name a few) and the three-hundred eighteen bishops at the Council of Nicea when Arius got condemned. I trust all of these people more than I trust anyone else to tell me what "the Bible really says." >Mormons will deny every single Christian creed for the last two-thousand years... and then say "we are Christians like you."

@dylanwilliams2202

7 ай бұрын

​@@davitz77 _" I trust the early Christians, ordained by the Apostles"_ Depending on how early you mean then so do I. In fact, when defending the true Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) I frequently quote Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. _"and their successors"_ See, this is the problem we come to. Bishops are not the same as Apostles. To prove this we can look at early church father’s writings. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch around 100-108 AD, recognized that bishops are not apostles. In his epistle to the Trallians he wrote, “Let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishop as the Father; and the presbyters [elders] as the Sanhedrin of God, and college of the apostles. Without these, there is no church.” Then he wrote, “I will not write any more sharply unto you about this matter, lest being a condemned man, I should seem to prescribe to you as an apostle.” Here, Ignatius makes the distinction of his office and was careful not to overstep the bounds of his authority because despite him being a bishop, he was no apostle and he knew it. Only apostles could ordain bishops. Clement of Rome, a bishop of Rome from 88 A.D. to 99 AD, according to the early Christian writer, Tertullian. “The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus. Therefore, sent forth by God and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments then were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, they appointed the first-fruits of their labors having first proved them by the Spirit to be bishops.” Clement of Alexandria, 150 to 215 A.D, speaks of John the apostle directing the overall church and appointing bishops in smaller geographical areas. He says “From when after the tyrant’s death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of Gentiles to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry someone of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.” These two both tell of apostles being the ones to appoint bishops. Bishops didn’t start to appoint themselves until later and these appointments were an overstep of their office and authority. Once the last bishop who was called by an apostle died then there was no more authority to run the Church as a whole left on earth. We know more apostles were called from Acts 1:26 with Matthias and with Paul and Barnabas being called apostles in Acts 14:14 and Paul introducing himself as an apostle of the Lord in all his letters and saying he was *ordained* an Apostle in 1 Timothy 2:7. Ephesians 2:20 says the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. Paul is saying that the priesthood foundation of the household of God includes apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. Again, Ignatius of Antioch wrote “Let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishop as the Father; and the presbyters [elders] as the Sanhedrin of God, and college of the apostles. Without these, there is no church.” In other words, in God’s and Jesus Christ’s true church there will be apostles and prophets found. The reverse is also true, a church without apostles and prophets is not the true church of God and Jesus Christ. This has been true since the apostles died, not just the church from 33 AD till around 120 AD. To say otherwise goes against the Bible and God’s word. Once having Apostles or Apostolic authority ~2000 years ago means nothing now since you don’t have them or it anymore. Oh and quoting the Early Church Fathers where they basically say "Listen to your bishop" doesn't change anything I said. Also, going on the assumption that you are Catholic. Peter wasn’t a bishop, he was an apostle and leader of the church during this time. There is no evidence of Peter starting the Church in Rome then being the bishop and ruling the Church from Rome. In fact, while Iranaeus does say Peter and Paul started the Church, he also says “The blessed apostles, then, *having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”* (Against Heresies 3 chapter 3) Or after the apostles set up the Church area, the first Bishop was Linus, not Peter. So where do you get that Peter was the Bishop of Rome? Where does it say that Linus or even the Bishop of Rome was supposed to secede Peter as leader? Linus was bishop of Rome from 67 AD until his death in 76 AD and John the Apostle, *the last of Christ’s top 3 Apostles who He took everywhere,* is said to have died between 89 - 120 AD, why would the leadership not have fallen to one of Jesus’s apostles? Andrew and Thomas are said to have been alive as well during that time. You also have to contend with the fact that most scholars believe Peter died in 68 AD, which if true means that Linus would have been Bishop of Rome while Peter was alive. Also, Peter is also supposed to have founded the Church at Antioch, so why does the Bishop of Rome get to be the leader when another Church has the same claim of authority? And the Church at Antioch was founded in 34 AD while Rome was founded in 42 AD so it doesn’t even have a seniority position which makes the claim of Rome even weaker. That also isn't mentioning that Bishops pretty much ran their churches independently from one another before anyone came in and said the Church of Rome was the "seat of power" and everyone had to listen to the Bishop of Rome. Also why there was eventually a schism because the Eastern Churches and Western Churches started to do things differently. _"the three-hundred eighteen bishops at the Council of Nicea when Arius got condemned."_ LOL Why? You know that both Arius and Athanasius used the Bible to justify their views of God, right? There was a problem being that Arius and Athanasius view of God both weren't entirely correct so it was a lose lose situation. _"Mormons will deny every single Christian creed for the last two-thousand years"_ Because they are an abomination to the Lord. These creeds changed the beliefs of Christians and turned it into something that wasn't ever meant. _"and then say "we are Christians like you."_ We are Christian in that we believe in Christ but we are nothing like you pagans.