Catholics ADMIT to illegally changing...

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You see, you have already rejected and dismissed the evidence without even looking at it.

You fit perfectly the saying
"Do not show me any evidence, I have already made up my mind"

Was it not I who spent my time delving through the interent so I could find the proper cardinal ratzinger quote in context so I could show the shoddiness and outright deceit being used in the so called evidence that was being posted on this forum.

So then, whose the one that puts the time and effort into knowing whether the evidence being presented is true? The evidence shows it's clearly me. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read on he Internet flamingzword...

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Was it not I who spent my time delving through the interent so I could find the proper cardinal ratzinger quote in context so I could show the shoddiness and outright deceit being used in the so called evidence that was being posted on this forum.

So then, whose the one that puts the time and effort into knowing whether the evidence being presented is true? The evidence shows it's clearly me. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read on he Internet flamingzword...

You look at a single piece of evidence and you throw away the whole case, fine lawyer you would make.

cases are not decided on one piece of wrong evidence, but on the preponderance of evidence.

[Aquila]

Regardless, the Catholic Church believes that the church has all authority over traditions and sacraments. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us if we do find that the Catholic church changed various things.

[ILG]

Since presumably the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit IS Jesus, there should be no problem with baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You look at a single piece of evidence and you throw away the whole case, fine lawyer you would make.

cases are not decided on one piece of wrong evidence, but on the preponderance of evidence.

In my experience anytime a single piece of evidence is put forth that is as outright deceitful as the evidence about cardinal ratzinger then that source has a preponderance of deceit.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You look at a single piece of evidence and you throw away the whole case, fine lawyer you would make.

cases are not decided on one piece of wrong evidence, but on the preponderance of evidence.

I'll be a good sport and show the deceitfulness in one more piece of that preponderance of evidence you have:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus." (Emphasis original)
If saying that this statement is found in volume 4 under “Baptism” is not enough to suggest that something fishy is going on, for what Encyclopedia doesn’t get to the letter “B” until the fourth-volume in a five-volume series?, then surely the fact that this sentence as quoted reads like it was picked up in mid-sentence should be an obvious tipoff.

As it turns out, by actually consulting the above resource, the words actually come from the section on “Sacraments” rather than the section on “Baptism,” and just like it appears the quote comes midstream in a fuller sentence. Furthermore, and most significantly, the snippet is not even a statement of the author as to that which he holds on the matter, but is rather a description of what some others say about it, to which the author goes on to register his objection. Here is what the contributing author to ISBE, J. C. Lambert, actually says in context:

The assumption made above, that both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper owe their origin as sacraments of the church to their definite appointment by Christ Himself, has been strongly challenged by some modern critics.
(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mk 16 15f occurs in a passage (vs 9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mt 28 19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more esp. as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mt 28 19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus” (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural presuppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting…. (J. C. Lambert, “Sacraments,” in James Orr, M.A., D.D., Gen Ed., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, NAARAH—SOCHO (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952), p. 2637.) (Bold emphasis mine)

The outright deceitfulness about what the actual encyclopedia was saying is astonishing!

***BTW the source in question is taken from wordsponges other thread about matthew 28:19 in case anyone was lost with why I was refuting a statement he did not make on this thread. (A challaenge arose that said there was alot of evidence about matthew 28:19 being fake)

[wordsponge]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'll be a good sport and show the deceitfulness in one more piece of that preponderance of evidence you have:



The outright deceitfulness about what the actual encyclopedia was saying is astonishing!

***BTW the source in question is taken from wordsponges other thread about matthew 28:19 in case anyone was lost with why I was refuting a statement he did not make on this thread. (A challaenge arose that said there was alot of evidence about matthew 28:19 being fake)

Hi brother

Please post the actual quote.

Is it only ONE quote that you question?

Very honorable people were making the remarks.

We must abide by the Truth.

GOD's judgment is according to TRUTH.

Respect...

[wordsponge]

Was there an error?

I can assure you that you will love the results
of correct baptism....

Everybody, OLD or young does,

[wordsponge]

A general reply:

The manifold, unspeakable
Grace of GOD and Christ is obtained from Christ,
after calling him in Baptism.

Be sure to call when you are submerged
or Jesus does not respond.

The best to all.

Happy are the Christians...

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by ILG

Since presumably the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit IS Jesus, there should be no problem with baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

Especially, when the one being baptized has already declared that their faith is in Jesus, who died for their sins.

Both formulas of baptism have been constructed to support scriptural doctrines that divide people, and the Body of Christ. Doctrines attempting to define God, these human divisions are synonymous with the fences and walls that the Pharisees constructed to hinder folks from ".....entering in..."

I'm not saying doctrine is unimportant, but these constructs generally miss the point... that God is love and Jesus died for the sins of the world. Therefore, enter in, believe, and begin a path of coming to know God, look to Jesus, study Jesus and walk as He walked, live as He live, in relationship to the Father and to others. Much of the Body is headed this direction, just need to lose the fear of tradition and religion.