Early Christians regard Mary as we do today.

the word trinity isn't either. I'm guessing you aren't a Christian though

@@smart_joey_4179 - The word "trinity" is a label on a biblical reality. It would be like calling Judas Iscariot the treasurer of the Nazarene Movement. It's not a word the bible uses but it's an accurate label.

@@GizmoFromPizmo so why can't other words like Purgatory or dogma be based on biblical realities? Just because the "word" isn't in scripture proves nothing

@@smart_joey_4179 - Well, "dogma" is a nothing word. It boils down to "doctrine" but with "magisterial" (another unbiblical term) overtones. Purgatory is a label on an antichrist theology that implies the insufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice. And it is a STRONG implication as the bible says that Jesus, "BY HIMSELF, purged our sins". Purgatory undoes that theology, making it an antichrist doctrine. Knowing the bible helps us to identify and avoid these unbiblical doctrines. Catholicism has discarded the scriptures in favor of human tradition and she freely admits that, so I'm not speaking out of school. Every doctrine that conflicts with bible teaching is trumped with, "Peter was the first pope." (As if that unbiblical notion nullifies the scriptures.)

@@GizmoFromPizmo magisterial is an unbiblical term but yet so is the trinity still the same poor argument Your understanding of purgatory is actually not what the church or Bible teaches. It does not nullify the sacririce of christ in anyway. The catholic church believes that only Christ died for our sins. It's not human tradition it's apostolic tradition. Yt comments are not the best for having a discussion would you want to have one via another way?

Its Ken Hudson Campbell

We do not see one example of babies getting baptized in the New Testament. It is assumed into passages where we are told that whole households were baptized, but there is no evidence in the passages that babies were included. This is only an assertion without any other scriptural evidence.

⁠@@kac0404is there scriptural evidence that that babies SHOULDN’T be baptised?

@siothrun72 To be baptized, a person must have awareness of his sins and his need for a Savior, repenting of his actions (Acts 2:36-38; Rom. 3:23; 6:23). He must hear the word of God (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17) and believe its testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31, Mark 16:16) who died on the cross and was raised from the dead to provide redemption for mankind (John 3:16; Rom. 5:6-10). He must confess this belief publicly (Rom. 10:9, Acts 8:26-40). A baby is incapable of doing these things. A baby taken by his parents to be baptized is not a Christian baby, just a wet baby. An actual baptism has not occurred. Baptizing a baby with the notion of making it a child of God reduces baptism to nothing more than a work. Mere works absent of faith cannot save. Moreover, it is a work performed on an individual by a third party, without his consent, or even his knowledge.

@kac0404 all cherry picked from different scripture but nowhere in scripture does it definitely say and show the exact mode of Baptism for every baptism mentioned in the Bible and to say there is a definitive mode without tradition you are misinterpretatinf scripture to fit your protest and are frankly not being honest because of your pride in thinking you can interpret scripture better than the church.. I can do this too.. Mark 16.16 Jesus says you must believe... Matthew 18.6 literally says that little ones, which are also infants, BELIEVE in Jesus so therefore should be baptized. Don't be a hypocrite if you truly believe in the Word of God

@kac0404 So were the friends that lowered the paralytic through the roof doing it because of works??? Which actually caused the paralytics sins to be forgiven... oh the hypocrisy