Not so much in Protestant churches. Skip to content. Search for:. Home » QA. This was the notice Pontius Pilate nailed over Jesus as he lay dying on the cross.
Often this symbol is inscribed on the Holy Eucharist. JHS Meaning Learn its History in Christianity. Recent Posts See All. Post not marked as liked. Says who? Can you point me to any reputable source? Because the sign means different things to different people. Not all times and cultures are the same. You can see the range of meanings it has and has had over time over at Wikipedia.
Times and cultures change the meaning of things. Perhaps I should have been more specific, can you give me a quotation from this document which you feel backs up your case? He is a Christian leader speaking to moral issues.
Please give me a quotation which gives you this impression. He also cites the UN charter concerning the need for a unity between morality, society, politics and economics. Do you not think that these things should be in accord? However, we can look at the other ways that they did speak to regular people. They exhorted them to holy lives and moral living, caring for the poor and the widow they even instituted the order of the deaconate for that purpose. This seems like a misapplication of 1 Thessalonians 5.
These are all signs of prosperity and decadence. Scarlet and purple dyes were expensive. Golden cups were used in feasting. Jesus criticized the religious leaders for undermining the Word of God and for corrupt practices. Did the bride carry a bouquet down the aisle? These are all Pagan traditions.
Are you against them as well? Tell me, who is the bride of Christ Ephesians ? Not at all, there are lots of other ways that it can be explained and, moreover, in the historical context of the document.
No, not the past. He was, however, alluding to Antiochus as a type. When read in its historical context particularly with the records of Josephus , the immediate meaning of the text is very quickly seen to be fulfilled in the First Century. In fact, I would argue that the destruction of the Temple was a microcosm, a template for the destruction on the world.
However, what you appear to do is to ignore the literal sense of the text and immediately project it onto the Catholic Church in the 20th Century as though that is an obvious choice.
Or that both Pontifexes, as well as all the previous pagan rulers of each empire were all dedicated to a Queen of Heaven? No, he was wildly off! Not only that, everybody has their own contradictory interpretation of Revelation. The point is that, with sufficient bias, you can project onto Revelation anything you want. The structure of St. Well, you have to answer the question.
In my article, what did I say Easter was in Latin? What did I say Easter was in Italian? What are the historic languages of Rome? Latin and Italian. How does this prove your point? Pascal Candle, Pascal Sacrifice, Pascal celebration etc. In fact, if you want to do that, you end up not being able to call anyone anything! They have to be good sources too.
I think those are the far better questions to ask. You begin with modern satanists and then work backwards. Why not the other way? To pick a different example, all over the Vatican you see pictures of keys. The typically anti-Catholic side GotQuestions. It depends on the context. When the symbol is used in a church setting, it is most likely a reference to Peter and the manner of his death. In other contexts the inverted cross is often an anti-Christian symbol.
Having said that, I would say that the historical case for this is extremely strong. What makes it evil? So you will quote someone simply because you believe one particular point, despite the fact that their world view is in complete contradiction to yours? I will be interested to see what you have to say to my earlier question about wedding bouquets and wedding rings.
What else do you call a woman in Heaven wearing a crown? So your interpretation of Scripture can trump all others? So you are willing to declare that millennia of Christians were heretics?
Are you saying that you, however, over two thousand years later, thousands of miles away and in a radically different culture and language, see things more clearly? Aside from yourself, who else understands the Faith properly? If faith automatically results in works as you appear to have asserted , this statement is strange. Why does James have to tell people who have faith to produce fruit if fruit is a natural consequence of faith?
If that is the case then he should be exhorting them to believe! Have faith! Will that save them? No, of course not!
Coming at the text with your presuppositions seems to me to render the text incomprehensible. However, under Catholic theology, James exhortation makes perfect sense. However, their faith is incomplete, barren and dead.
What will take their faith and make it alive, fruitful and complete? James gives us a very simple answer: works. What does Syncretism have to do with faith and works? Again, to reiterate, at no point does James criticize his readers for the faith that they have.
He criticizes them for what is lacking: works. Without acts of charity, their faith cannot save them. Wait, I thought that, according to your theology, that sin had no effect any more?
Were these people not even Christians?! No, please enlighten me. Thank you for being honest. And daily we pick up to read the bible, we sin against GOD for disobeying His commandment to read the books of the Bible how he intended. Majority of Christianity rejects the command, just like what Paul wrote in Romans 10 concerning the nation Israel and their stumbling, though they were zealous, they went about establishing their own righteousness instead of submitting to the righteousness of God Romans I wish you tbe best.
And sin is the transgression of the Law. Paul wrote scripture which are commandments of the Lord 1 Cor to be obeyed. These are 3 verses that must be treated as one and cannot be isolated individually. Note the 3-level edification of the believer. I will highlight the part of the verse in bold so you can see it. Here it is below notice carefully the punctuation marks, commas etc,.
Romans 25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel , and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began , 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets , according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:.
Now let us understand individually, what are those 3-level edification, God does to a believer to establish him in the faith, which is a command of the everlasting God, which i call it the Establishment commandment Romans The gospel God uniquely gave it to him. Those who follow it diligently will fulfill the will of God and his eternal purpose to conform to the image of his Son Romans , and will know how to function correctly under the doctrines of Grace, walk in Holiness, know the Mystery of Godliness 1 Timothy , and most important how to stop sinning in their members applying the first 16 verses of Romans 6 to the details of their lives.
It depends on the desire to know the truth keeping in mind the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. You will need two bookmarks — place one starting from the Book of Romans and the other one starting at Genesis.
Now you must for the rest of your life, spend at least an hour, the more is better for bible reading. Then you can first read Romans to Revelation for 30 mins followed by the other 30 mins starting from Genesis to Romans, looping continuously.
This is exactly how Paul established the Churches in Acts For some more excellent explanation on the establishment commandment, I strongly suggest you devote some time listening to the following audio lessons. There are a lot of assumptions and presuppositions here….
Firstly, are you saying that you think that when Paul authored those last few verses of Romans he was telling the Romans that all Christians should read him first, then the Gospels, then the Old Testament? Do you think that was his intention? Please demonstrate that from Scripture. I would argue that one of the primary purposes that Acts of the Apostles is to show that Peter and Paul were not in competition, but in unity, both in doctrine and practice.
Both raised the dead, cast out demons etc. Both preached the same Gospel and both invited Gentiles into the New Covenant in fact, Peter did it first. I said earlier God revelation in the Bible is progressive revelation. Paul was the last apostle 1 Corinthians to be raised by Jesus on the Road to Damascus.
So what is Mystery Truth? Look a Ephesians In short, Mystery truth encompasses with many things but the core of it is that, the Jews and Gentiles are now co-heirs, fellow heirs and joint-heirs with Christ called by the gospel and not through Israel.. Earlier when Jesus showed up in his 3-year earthly ministry, he came to fufill the Abrahamic covenant to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.
What was the Abrahamic covenant? But that Programme God suspended because of the un-believing Jew who had two problems to this day i believing that Jesus was the promised messiah and ii that he was raised from the dead. Because of their disobedience and un-belief they were cast off Romans So God suspended that program with Israel temporarily, and ushered a new Program the dispensation of the grace of God in light of mystery kept secret in times past, but first revealed to the Apostle Paul and later the 12 got it by the Spirit.
Points to note during Jesus earthly ministry in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John with the Abrahamic covenant in effect: i He shall save HIS people from his sins mathhew ii Jesus said to the 12 … go not to houses of the gentiles but go into house of the lost sheep of israel.
So its so wonderful to do a carefully study of these events as it proves how people get messed up by not obeying God establishment commandment Romans I believe the epistles should be interpreted in their historical context, but of course they are applicable to us as well today. However, this is hardly something exclusive to Paul! It was Peter who commanded they be baptised and it was Peter to defended these actions to the others in Jerusalem.
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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.
All the previous major covenants Adamic, Noaic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic were fulfilled and recapitulated in Christ. I disagree with most of your analysis on this. It was therefore proper that He should go to His people first and it was foretold that salvation would come from them.
In my previous response I asked three questions and you only answered one of them. See Galatians , the rendition in the KJV will differ with other translations. Not the bold words: OF and TO. Satan want you to believe they both Peter and Paul preached the same gospels.
Peter and the 12 were committed in the gospels to preach salavtion of repentance and be baptised, the gospel of the circumcision. Paul preached his salvation gospel of the circumcision presenting Calvary as glad tidings of Good things Rom and baptism by Holy Spirit. In Mat Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:.
Here theGospel of the circumcsion to an through the nation Israel continues, the Great commission happens to be after the resurrection and continues till the earlier part of Acts. However, neither of these were exclusive, as the Acts of the Apostles proves. Why should I pick the the KJV rendering? Okay, all this is a very novel interpretation of Scripture.
Nobody in antiquity understood it this way. How does that work?! No, they preached the same Gospel — repent, believe and be baptized. In Acts we see them doing this in exactly the order Jesus said — Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria and the ends of the earth Rome. We see following the same pattern — go to the Synagogue and then to the marketplace.
Paul went off into the desert. What great event of salvation history took place to bring about this change? A re-write of the 6th para above.. Paul preached his salvation gospel of the un-circumcision presenting Calvary as glad tidings of Good things Rom and baptism by Holy Spirit.
Why does Paul say in his epistles for Christ sent me not baptize but to preach the gospel? So again.. Why does Paul say in his epistles say… for Christ sent me not baptize but to preach the gospel? Contrast this in Matthew Jesus tells the 12 in the Great commission to go to all nations and baptize. Why the two distinct messages Jesus gives to the 12 and a different one to Paul? You know why you hold to that baptism saves which does not , because you want to hold to a teaching that became non-operational when mystery truth was revealed to the apostle Paul.
That is why the RC church desperately tends to run to the gospels to get its doctrine which is non-operational. This is because Catholicism roots come from Judaism which follow the same symbolism and ritualism. Pauline is female not male. I certainly know Paul. You see he went to meet the others by revelation Gal So what does revelation mean?
But notice Paul says, contrariwise … they affirmed his revelation. Paul does speak of baptism just a few chapters later, explaining that this is how we are united to Christ in His death and resurrection by baptism Romans He expands upon this in Colossians We know that he baptised people. In the verse immediately proceeding 1 Corinthians he says he baptized the household of Stephanas and, given the name and geographic location…he was most likely a Gentile.
Many other examples of water baptism for gentiles could be given e. Acts , 33, …. Baptism…now saves you , not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ — 1 Peter Again, the problem with your theology here is that it has absolutely no basis in history.
Every single Christian in the Early Church believed that baptism actually washed away sins. Your interpretation forces you to say that all the Christian martyrs of the early Centuries, all the theologians who hammered out the Trinity and the nature of Christ, all the Christians for the first millennia and a half were heretics, getting the most basic teaching of salvation wrong.
Which is more likely? Were all the Christian heroes of history wrong? Or is it more likely that something is wrong with your interpretation? On that, I agree! Christianity grew out of Judaism! Paul, his writings, or his doctrines. More importantly, however, we are told blow-by-blow of the vision that Peter had concerning the Gentiles, as well as his interaction with Cornelius. In Galatians Paul says he went up by revelation to communicate unto them Peter, John that Gospel he Paul preached among the gentiles.
Why would paul have to communicate the gospel he preached among the gentiles if they all preached the same gospel message? In Galatans we see Paul says the gospel that he preached was not from men Like Peter, james or John but by directly revelation of Jesus Christ.
So Paul gospel contained a different message although they preached the same Lord Jesus Christ. Why in me first and not Peter, james, John? Prove to me otherwise,. A un-saved person will not understand this. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned 1 Corinthians Here Paul tells us we are sealed by Holy Spirit the moment we believe the gospel of salvation which is Romans Note this is Holy Spirit Baptism and not water baptism.
In the Gospel of John we see John the baptist — the precursor to the coming Christ the messiah, continue in that tradition of baptizing by water water baptism in the river jordan — Mat and that tradition carried over till Acts.
In Mark it says I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Hence when Paul was raised to go to all he nations with the glad tidings his gospel message was not repent, be baptized in water specific for the Jews , rather he preached his gospel of the grace of God in Christ Jesus — being justified freely by his grace Romans ,,,And baptism is by the Holy Spirit Eph and not water.
Most cults get their non-operational doctrines from the bible being unlearned, unstable fools as they wrest the scripture to their own destruction 2 Peter There is a christian sect unlike the catholics, calling themselves the campbelites they pick up their non-operation doctrines from Acts saying you need to be baptized in water to be saved. Was wondering if they came out of the heretical mother catholic church. Well, firstly we see in Galatians that Paul had already once been to Jerusalem to see Cephas and James.
So what was the Galatians trip about fourteen years later? Well, scholars disagree. So, at the Council of Jerusalem, we see in Acts that Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to speak to the elders and apostles there about this question of circumcision. Ultimately, the Council sided with Paul and Peter, concluding that Gentiles did not have to first become Jews through circumcision before becoming Christians.
So, in short, Paul went up to Jerusalem to have both his ministry and Gospel validated, following opposition to both of these from the Judaizing party. Yes, and I would affirm that.
This is your HUGE assumption. Have you not heard of other men around the world whom God has reached down and moved with grace in an extraordinary way? Did this necessitate a new and improved Gospel revelation?
Sure it is. Peter or Paul? It was Peter. Paul also called people to repentance and he also baptized with water. Likewise, in his Pentecost day sermon, Peter declares the glad tidings of Calvary. However, at the time he is preaching to the Jews gathered in Jerusalem for the feast, not wandering around Gentile Asia and Europe.
To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Can you name anybody in antiquity who chopped the Bible up in the way that you do, pitting Peter against Paul? Who can you point to in history who believed as you do? Some of the washings were practical, sure. Some of the washings were specifically for the priests, sure. However, some the washings were also symbolic and some of the washings were for all the people of God.
The very fact that a prophet like John the Baptist is out baptizing in the desert demonstrates this. Are you asserting that baptisms with water stopped some time during the narration of Acts?
Yes, this tells us that the baptism of John and the Baptism instituted by Christ are not the same thing. The Baptism of Christ is done in the name of the Trinity, washes away sin, joins the person to the New Covenant and to the Body of Christ. No, again, you go beyond what the verse says. What is in dispute your reading into the text which places the blood of Christ in opposition to baptism.
Whichever way you cut it, the merits of Christ have to be applied to the sinner. The question then is how that happens. Since Abraham, one entered into the covenant with God through circumcision of the flesh, but since Christ, one enters through baptism, the circumcision of the New Covenant. Well, since the Church of history is the Catholic Church , all Christian denominations come out of the Catholic Church somewhere along the line. The only difference is the degree of separation. When Paul came on the scene, salvation to Jews and Gentiles was by Holy Spirit baptism not water baptism.
The later water baptism , though an biblical truth, became non-operational when dispensation of the grace of God in light of mystery truth was first revealed to the Apostle Paul and others Peter et.
Here Jesus gives Peter authority to bind and loose. Here we clearly see Peter preaching the gospel message of Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And in the next verse Acts it says while Peter yet spake these words…, the Holy Ghost fell on them gentiles.
But the described order did not appear with Peter interaction with Cornelius in Acts So GOD did away with water baptism at that point. Let further see.. Years later.. The same meeting that is described in Galatians. Read Acts carefully. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they gentiles. After Acts 15, Peter fades away, and its Paul all the way to the end of Acts. Then his 13 epistles kick-in. So water baptism is a biblical truth but became non-operation for today since Paul came along.
Baptism today does not save. It was instituted by God for the nation Israel his covenant people. The problem with the catholic teaching cannot renounce water baptism because if it were to do, all its doctrine would collapse like a pack of cards. But remember you will face the white throne judgement with wrath and indignation poured upon your soul to be cast into the lake of fire for obeying a non-operational gospel message which your church is falsely lying to you.
It becomes another Gospel, another Jesus as Paul describes in Galatians. God is not a respecter of persons.
Only cult religions get their doctrine from scripture to suit their heretical teachings that is non-operational for today. One more thing.. Is it not by shedding his blood for the remission of sins? Yes, here we see the link between baptism and receiving the Spirit.
Here you have eisegesis. How do you know what Peter was going to say? The entire point of this chapter in Acts is to explain how God revealed to Peter that the Gentiles were acceptable to God for inclusion in the New Covenant. From your point of view, you actually have a problem with this passage because what does Peter say should be done?
He says that they should be baptized with water. At this point there were no Gentiles in the Church. The entire point of this episode was the revelation that God was offering Gentiles the same deal as He was offering the Jews Acts If that is the case, then how is that the Corinthian Church, not yet planted by Paul, would years later boast over which person had baptized them? Why did Paul baptize Stephanas? You will see how wonderfully in verse 11 Peter exercises his authority Jesus gave him to bind and loose….
Where does Peter say that there is no repentance? Where does he say that baptism is no longer necessary. Nothing has changed in that regard. Peter even makes the point that it was through his mouth that the Gentiles heard the Gospel Acts The focus of the story switches to Paul, sure. Again, the apologetic point of Acts is to show the parallels and complementary between the mission of Peter and the mission of Paul.
Since the early part of Acts focussed on Peter, the latter portion focusses on Paul. And you know that there are more than thirteen epistles in the New Testament, right? Paul is not the sole author of the New Testament. For example, in 1 Peter , Peter writes about the saving effects of Baptism….
Please explain why we had the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension and the preaching of the Gospel, the apex of salvation history…only to have the good news which had been proclaimed changed years later. The Catholic Church teaches that we are only saved by the blood of Christ. However, what is the ordinary means of application of those merits to the believer? I think there is some misunderstanding what I said about baptism , perhaps I did not word the sentence properly.
What I meant to say is that: Baptism after Cornelius case is not requirement for salvation. The gentiles were already saved before getting baptised.
Sure Peter asked them to get water Baptised, but that only after they received the gift of the Holy Ghost something that did not happen when he preached earlier in Acts. The Holy Ghost then, came on them only after water baptism. The gospel for today is Romans includes repentance and that for me is final and biblical.
I believe God as it was told me. Romans is clear that God only accepts the blood atonement of Christ his only begotten Son as ALL sufficient payment for the forgiveness of life time of sins. The Holy Ghost baptises me in living union with Christ Ephesians and places me into the body of Christ — the Church the moment I truly believed in Jesus after having faith in his blood, fully persuaded.
So I believe God. Again water Baptism since Paul and now is not required to be saved, it is holy spirit baptism wherein a lost sinner is called by the Gospel see 2 Thess God calls mankind to be saved by the Gospel.
I have the Spirit of Christ living inside me as opposed to you who doesnt. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his Romans See below excerpts from his book:. By believing in Christ Jn ; Acts ?
By repentance Acts ; 2 Pet ? By declaring with our mouths Luke ; Rom ? By grace Acts ; Eph ? By perseverance Matt ; Mk ; Col ? By his blood Rom ; Heb ? By His righteousness Rom ; 2 Pet ? By His cross Eph ; Col ? Paul fought against such heresy. The same he would do for water baptism. Peter in his epistles says we are redeemd by the precious blood of the lamb not by vain traditions. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works , which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
That seems confusing! Can you name anyone? There is nothing in Acts 15 that talks about baptism. The question being answered at the Council of Jerusalem is: do Gentiles need to be circumcised in order to be Christians?
Repentance is implicit in those other cases of baptism. In Catholic theology all of these are tied together. For example, in Acts the Holy Spirit comes with the laying on of hands. In your model, how does that work? The very fact that we baptize babies proves this, since babies can do nothing for God. One verse, in isolation, taken to be the sole word on salvation to the exclusion of the rest of the Bible. This is then set against the entirety of Christian history.
I have also responded to this before. You just assume that the baptism here refers to the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism , without any justification in the text for that assumption. What in 2 Thessalonians says that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation? Since the entire issue concerns what actually constitutes the Gospel, quoting that passage achieves nothing. Baptism in the name of the Trinity was instituted by Christ at the Great Commission.
Here are the major covenants of salvation history note the progression :. Good works are only possible by the grace of God. If you want to deal with that, please do it on the appropriate article. Steve is reading all of Scripture, not picking one verse out and saying that it trumps all other verses. Nobody today has powers by laying of hands to impute the Holy Spirit, that is an apostolic gift only given to the apostles, then and it ceased when the last apostle died.
The Holy Ghost now manifests itself by genuine saving faith in a believer in the dispensaton of the grace of God. Do you understand what is a dispensation? In Ephesians Paul explains the mechanics of how salvation is obtained for today for a believer. God grace through your faith. I did not refer to batism in 1 Thes I am only trying to show how relevant for today a lost hell-bound sinner is called by the Gospel to obtain salvation which is is a person, something that your are trying to downplay to your own destruction.
I think this is another case of the strange way you use Bible quotations. The Gospel must be preached. Can such a faith save? This is the very point I addressed earlier. You make the assertion that works automatically follow. You have yet to prove that from Scripture. Water baptism is NOT required for salvation. From where do you think Christians for 2, years have thought Baptism draws its power?
This is what Romans means.
0コメント