Catholic Church is more Biblical than Protestantism!

[Muffled]

Great - So now show me one instance in the scriptures where they baptized anyone using that formula.

First of all it says in the name singular.

Second - The other parallel verse to the one you gave, such as Luke 24:47 has to mean the same thing.

Third - The Apostles were there and they knew what he meant. Just look and see how they baptized. See Acts 2:38 and Acts 4:12 and Acts 8:16 and Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5

If you understand that there are not 3 persons in the Godhead you can see why the Apostles baptized like they did in the scriptures.

So what are you saying? I believe you are saying that if the apostles didn't baptize the way they were commanded then the Bible is in error to report that command.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

So what are you saying? I believe you are saying that if the apostles didn't baptize the way they were commanded then the Bible is in error to report that command.

I was just referring to how the Apostles were actually there, and they understood what he meant in Matthew 28:19. It didn't mean to baptize using the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; or that is what the Apostles would have done and taught.

And I was explaining that Luke 24:47 is a different account of the very same event. So Luke 24:47 has to have the same meaning as Matthew 28:19. The two verses have to be in harmony. So then we look and see how the Apostles taught and baptized. And we see that in all cases they used the name of the one that shed the blood. (They never used the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.)

 

[paradox]

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

The meaning of this verse is, "to those who believe God like children"

The Holy Spirit would not contradict himself. Scrap the whole practice millenia and all, as churches who do follow the original New Testament church on this practice have done.

Maybe we should be dressed like John the baptist and eating locusts because John ate them as well, would that be biblical enough?
If some Christians sects treat the bible as God then they should be consistent with the bible entirely, don't you think?

Tradition is the work of holly spirit and that's biblical, the only ones who bring this into question are Christian sects.

 

[Truth in love]

Please keep in mind, that nobody at RF can actually prove that I share the views of the handsome young brilliant man in this YouTube video!

The man in the video is also NOT saying that absolutely every Protestant believes what he says when he says "Protestants say XYZ"...

I just found this YouTube online, I found it very brilliant, thoughtful, ingenious, clever, powerful, and thought I would share. I'm not saying I agree with it entirely.

In the end, I don't think there is a religion on the world that is biblical. They are all unbiblical to some extent.

But the Catholic church is hands down the most biblical religion there is. I can make a very good point as to why!

Going to say that I don’t think either does that good of a job following the Bible. There are many people of faith and love, but far too much of the Bible is dismissed.