Say a phrase, and you are saved...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

So you believe God is a respecter of persons?

No.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

The thief on the cross was not baptized, he merely affirmed his faith in Jesus as Lord.

All are saved by grace through faith. Since the thief died before Peter's Acts 2:38 message, it was not possible to follow it by faith yet.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

All saved people should be baptized as evidence of their faith, but it's not some ritual that saves a person. That's Roman Catholic ideology.

"20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:20-21 KJV)

Baptism does save us. It is not because the water is magical, it is because of a person's faith in being baptized that baptism saves. A person who gets baptized in an attempt to get saved, but does not have faith is only getting wet.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

My faith is not based on quibbling over letters.

It's more than about letters. Yah is a different god than Jeh.

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND HIS PROPHET IS... no, that's not it, hang on a second...

Look, God exists, I have faith in him and the salvation that he has given me, and that's it. You wanna whinge about what letter is what, feel free. You want to call him Jehovah or Yahweh or G*d or I AM or whatever, knock yourself out.

But I have to believe that, when the time comes, and you are before him and asked to give an account for what you did with what you were given, saying "I defended the existence of the Hebrew letter 'J' on Internet forums" isn't going to account for much.

Particularly when you and your pastor are intentionally engaged in activity that Christ specifically called hypocrisy. If I were you, I'd rethink my priorities.

reply to post by truejew


Why did Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, forget to mention Acts 2:38 when he wrote the gospel message in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, Ephesians 2:8-10, and Romans 10:9-10? Was he just having an "off" day? Maybe he didn't get enough sleep?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Why did Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, forget to mention Acts 2:38 when he wrote the gospel message in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, Ephesians 2:8-10, and Romans 10:9-10? Was he just having an "off" day? Maybe he didn't get enough sleep?

Paul wrote to Christians who were saved. He did not need to explain Acts 2:38 to them.

reply to post by adjensen


This is about more than letters. Yah is the Egyptian moon god. Jeh is the name of the true God. One who believes that Yah was manifest in the flesh, denies that Jeh-sus was manifest in the flesh.

"7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 1:7-8 KJV)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Why did Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, forget to mention Acts 2:38 when he wrote the gospel message in 1 Corinthians chapter 15

Because Acts was written later, and neither the writer of Acts or Paul were there when Peter supposedly said that.
I thought you took a New Testament survey course.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

This is about more than letters. Yah is the Egyptian moon god. Jeh is the name of the true God. One who believes that Yah was manifest in the flesh, denies that Jeh-sus was manifest in the flesh.

"7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 1:7-8 KJV)

And how does my dismissal of your semantic gyrations amount to my "confessing that Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh?" I am growing ever more convinced that those Christ will condemn while they cry "Lord, Lord" are likely to be the people who ignore his grace and commands, while fixating on irrelevant points of theology or personal perspective that they wish to impose on everyone else.

Your whole argument is idiotic, but fits right in with your dismissal of valid questions regarding you and Reckart's integrity, in going directly against the words of Christ. You're right, the rest of the world is wrong, and you'll stick to that story right to the bitter end.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Why did Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, forget to mention Acts 2:38 when he wrote the gospel message in 1 Corinthians chapter 15

Because Acts was written later, and neither the writer of Acts or Paul were there when Peter supposedly said that.
I thought you took a New Testament survey course.

So this was some giant secret? And how do you know that Luke wasn't there? Or Saul, for that matter?

Who was taking attendance and ticking off names on a sheet, in order for you to cite this "for sure" knowledge?

On the one hand, we have these Biblical redactionists, who have turned Matthew 28:19 into a one word verse, and on the other, we have the orthodox church, which apparently "forgot" to add some words to Acts 2:38.

See the illogic there?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

And how does my dismissal of your semantic gyrations amount to my "confessing that Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh?" I am growing ever more convinced that those Christ will condemn while they cry "Lord, Lord" are likely to be the people who ignore his grace and commands, while fixating on irrelevant points of theology or personal perspective that they wish to impose on everyone else.

Do you claim that the yahwist's who call Jesus a "pig god", "horse god", or "zeus" and the Babylonian Jews who hate Jesus and who's ancestors crucified Him are not antichrist?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

And how does my dismissal of your semantic gyrations amount to my "confessing that Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh?" I am growing ever more convinced that those Christ will condemn while they cry "Lord, Lord" are likely to be the people who ignore his grace and commands, while fixating on irrelevant points of theology or personal perspective that they wish to impose on everyone else.

Do you claim that the yahwist's who call Jesus a "pig god", "horse god", or "zeus" and the Babylonian Jews who hate Jesus and who's ancestors crucified Him are not antichrist?

I'm claiming that, by judging other people on irrelevant minutia, while ignoring Christ's commandments, you're lumping yourself in with other so-called Christian aberrations like the Westboro Baptish Church.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

On the one hand, we have these Biblical redactionists, who have turned Matthew 28:19 into a one word verse,

No one is removing anything from the true words of Matthew 28:19.

Your added words version, if true, would mean the Apostles' disobeyed Jesus when they baptized in Jesus name.

"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585)

Originally posted by adjensen

and on the other, we have the orthodox church, which apparently "forgot" to add some words to Acts 2:38.

See the illogic there?

Who is trying to add words to Acts 2:38?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

And how does my dismissal of your semantic gyrations amount to my "confessing that Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh?" I am growing ever more convinced that those Christ will condemn while they cry "Lord, Lord" are likely to be the people who ignore his grace and commands, while fixating on irrelevant points of theology or personal perspective that they wish to impose on everyone else.

Do you claim that the yahwist's who call Jesus a "pig god", "horse god", or "zeus" and the Babylonian Jews who hate Jesus and who's ancestors crucified Him are not antichrist?

I'm claiming that, by judging other people on irrelevant minutia, while ignoring Christ's commandments, you're lumping yourself in with other so-called Christian aberrations like the Westboro Baptish Church.

You did not answer the question.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Why did Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, forget to mention Acts 2:38 when he wrote the gospel message in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, Ephesians 2:8-10, and Romans 10:9-10? Was he just having an "off" day? Maybe he didn't get enough sleep?

Paul wrote to Christians who were saved. He did not need to explain Acts 2:38 to them.

Why was Paul laying out the gospel of salvation to saved people? And are you implying the Holy Spirit didn't realize people for generations would be reading Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, or Romans?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

And how does my dismissal of your semantic gyrations amount to my "confessing that Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh?" I am growing ever more convinced that those Christ will condemn while they cry "Lord, Lord" are likely to be the people who ignore his grace and commands, while fixating on irrelevant points of theology or personal perspective that they wish to impose on everyone else.

Do you claim that the yahwist's who call Jesus a "pig god", "horse god", or "zeus" and the Babylonian Jews who hate Jesus and who's ancestors crucified Him are not antichrist?

I'm claiming that, by judging other people on irrelevant minutia, while ignoring Christ's commandments, you're lumping yourself in with other so-called Christian aberrations like the Westboro Baptish Church.

You did not answer the question.

Unlike the way that you've answered mine all along, eh?

If someone intentionally called Jesus another name, with the intent of insulting him or misleading others, that would be one thing, but you've a long row to hoe before you demonstrate that, and I think that Christ will take more of an issue with your lying, or Reckart selling fake titles to boost the egos of fellow delusional "true church" members than with your claim as the basis for damnation.

On the one hand, we have vague claims that rely on people being condemned for something they have no clue about, and on the other, we have intentional sinning and dismissing the words of Christ in condemning those who are haughty.

Explain again (for the first time) how you're any different than Westboro Baptish Church?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Why did Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, forget to mention Acts 2:38 when he wrote the gospel message in 1 Corinthians chapter 15

Because Acts was written later, and neither the writer of Acts or Paul were there when Peter supposedly said that.
I thought you took a New Testament survey course.

edit on 15-10-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

My questions are hyperbole. My next point was to ask the other member if he knew when Acts was written by Luke.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

On the one hand, we have these Biblical redactionists, who have turned Matthew 28:19 into a one word verse,

No one is removing anything from the true words of Matthew 28:19.

Which leaves you with the awkward position of explaining a one word verse.

Your added words version, if true, would mean the Apostles' disobeyed Jesus when they baptized in Jesus name.

Or, perhaps, that it means the same thing. Or that it doesn't matter. Or that the bit in Acts isn't accurate.

Was Jesus baptized in the name of Jesus?

"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585)

This is a useless cite -- you need to cite the source of the "according to a wide scholarly consensus" bit. For all we know, it originated with the Jesus Seminar.

Originally posted by adjensen

and on the other, we have the orthodox church, which apparently "forgot" to add some words to Acts 2:38.

See the illogic there?

Who is trying to add words to Acts 2:38?

If, as you say, the early church added those words to Matthew, why did they forget to correct the claimed contradiction in Acts? Some possibilities:

1) They didn't add the words in Matthew
2) There is no contradiction
3) The "true church" are the first bright boys to pick up on it, after 2000 years.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Why was Paul laying out the gospel of salvation to saved people?

Are you saying 1 Cor. was not written to the Church?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And are you implying the Holy Spirit didn't realize people for generations would be reading Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, or Romans?

Those are still for the Church, not the unsaved.

reply to post by truejew


If all his letters were only meant "for the church", then why is he explaining or laying out the gospel of salvation? Why is he telling members of the church how to be saved?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Unlike the way that you've answered mine all along, eh?

I answer your questions that are on the topic being discussed. Apostolic Theological Bible College was an off topic attack that you started. I tried to answer your questions on it, but quickly got tired of the insults.

If you cannot see that adding the Egyptian moon god into your doctrine makes you non-Christian and cannot discuss without continuing insults, I can not help you. I would suggest it is time for you to move along.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

If all his letters were only meant "for the church", then why is he explaining or laying out the gospel of salvation? Why is he telling members of the church how to be saved?

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV)

Paul was writing to "brethren" who "stand" in the gospel.