John was not a baptist.

'The next day he (John) saw Jesus coming toward him, and said,
“Behold, the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world!
This is He of Whom I said, ‘After me comes a man Who ranks before me,
because He was before me.’
I myself did not know Him,
but for this purpose I came baptizing with water,
that He might be revealed to Israel.”

(John 1:29-31 ESV)
 
If I prepare meals, I'm a cook.
If I repair cars, I'm an auto mechanic.
If I baptize people in water or lemon juice, I'm a baptizer.
And if I reply to your post, I'm a right.
 
He was called "The Baptist" because his practice was to baptize those who responded to the message he proclaimed and sincerely repented of their sins ( Matt 3:1 ; Mark 6:14 ; Luke 7:20 ). John was an end-times prophet. He conducted his ministry with an eschatological authority that demanded immediate action.
 
Some people worship Mary as a god, but I guess that's just another theology, everyone's got one.
BINGO!!! The Roman Catholic "Mary thing" is probably just a re-purposing of the Roman goddess Diana, and the "Apparitions", are nothing but lying demonic phantasms. Oh and "Purgatory" is a Platonic philosophy, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
BINGO!!! The Roman Catholic "Mary thing" is probably just a re-purposing of the Roman goddess Diana, and the "Apparitions", are nothing but lying demonic phantasms. Oh and "Purgatory" is a Platonic philosophy, nothing more.
You may have noticed when Roman Catholics justify a doctrine with scripture, you read it, and something always doesn't add up. So .. it's probably related to that. I wonder how crazy our theology will look 1000 years from now?
 
You may have noticed when Roman Catholics justify a doctrine with scripture, you read it, and something always doesn't add up. So .. it's probably related to that. I wonder how crazy our theology will look 1000 years from now?
And, of course the ROMAN CATHOLIC belief that the Catholic LAITY is too STUPID to read the Bible with any understanding.
 
And, of course the ROMAN CATHOLIC belief that the Catholic LAITY is too STUPID to read the Bible with any understanding.
Well, expecting a theology based on logic from the roman empire period of history to understand the bible in a post enlightenment europe context may be a bit much to expect.

Since the enlightenment resulted in a societal myopia that lead to the holocaust, it's probably not a sound foundation either.

I wonder what theology will look like in another 1000 years.
 
Last edited:
Well, expecting a theology based on logic from the roman empire period of history to understand the bible in a post enlightenment europe context may be a bit much to expect.

Since the enlightenment resulted in a societal myopia that lead to the holocaust, it's probably not a sound foundation either.

I wonder what theology will look like in another 1000 years.
Between you and me, I doubt that there will be another 1000 years, probably not even 100 years.
 
Between you and me, I doubt that there will be another 1000 years, probably not even 100 years.
I see that possibility too. However, a lot of the prophecy fulfillments in the news are half scriptures and manufactured by the state for distraction. So, the other direction is also pretty possible.
 
I see that possibility too. However, a lot of the prophecy fulfillments in the news are half scriptures and manufactured by the state for distraction. So, the other direction is also pretty possible.
Chuckle!!! I remember back in the '70s people got all over Billy Graham when he suggested that the "Rapture" might no be a immanent as the "theologians" were teaching (it had to happen in one Jewish Generation from 1946).

It didn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom