Say a phrase, and you are saved...

Originally posted by truejew

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.

You think that this inane jabbering about moon gods and editing Bibles is on-topic for the OP? My criticism is a spot-on post for the OP, because I'm showing how salvation is not a matter of some magic spell, and intentional sinning is not indicative of salvation.

All you've served to do is demonstrate the foolishness of anti-Christian cults, who justify their disdain for the word of Christ in their own arrogance.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

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.

You think that this inane jabbering about moon gods and editing Bibles is on-topic for the OP? My criticism is a spot-on post for the OP, because I'm showing how salvation is not a matter of some magic spell, and intentional sinning is not indicative of salvation.

All you've served to do is demonstrate the foolishness of anti-Christian cults, who justify their disdain for the word of Christ in their own arrogance.

edit on 15-10-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

Are insults on topic in any thread?

Originally posted by truejew

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.

Good, so if that is the Gospel by which we stand, and which we are saved by, please explain why the gospel doesn't mention baptism as a prerequisite. Did Paul forget that? The "for" in Acts 2:38 should be read as "because of". For in English has more than one denotative usage.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

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.

You think that this inane jabbering about moon gods and editing Bibles is on-topic for the OP? My criticism is a spot-on post for the OP, because I'm showing how salvation is not a matter of some magic spell, and intentional sinning is not indicative of salvation.

All you've served to do is demonstrate the foolishness of anti-Christian cults, who justify their disdain for the word of Christ in their own arrogance.

edit on 15-10-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

Are insults on topic in any thread?

How is that insulting?

Your pastor is selling Doctoral degrees, that's a fact.

You lied and said that he wasn't selling them, that's a fact.

Jesus says that what your pastor is doing is emphatically wrong, that's a fact.

By extension, your defense of it means that you, too, ignore Christ, that's a fact.

By the OP's question, your pastor is not saved by any magic words, he'll be judged by the fact that he rejects Christ's teaching in Matthew 23, and you'll be judged by claiming that Lonewolf and I are "false witnesses", while you violate the Ninth Commandment.

No insults there, just an admonition that you might want to reflect on what the OP is asking, and how you line up behind it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

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.

Good, so if that is the Gospel by which we stand, and which we are saved by, please explain why the gospel doesn't mention baptism as a prerequisite. Did Paul forget that? The "for" in Acts 2:38 should be read as "because of". For in English has more than one denotative usage.

Not everyone who hears the gospel preached are saved. The gospel requires a faith action in response. That faith action is given in Acts 2:38, right after Peter preached the gospel. Those who take that faith action then stand in and are saved by the gospel.

A person cannot be saved before having faith and therefore "for" cannot mean "because of" in this case.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

How is that insulting?

One example would be when you called me a "simp". Another when you put us together with Westboro baptist church.

Originally posted by adjensen

Your pastor is selling Doctoral degrees, that's a fact.

He is giving them to those who qualify for them. That is what the requirements and the interview is for. Not everyone who wants one, gets one.

Originally posted by adjensen

You lied and said that he wasn't selling them, that's a fact.

I did not lie.

Originally posted by adjensen

Jesus says that what your pastor is doing is emphatically wrong, that's a fact.

Can you quote a verse that says honorary degrees from Bible colleges are wrong?

Originally posted by adjensen

By extension, your defense of it means that you, too, ignore Christ, that's a fact.

I do not ignore Christ.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
Jesus says that what your pastor is doing is emphatically wrong, that's a fact.

Can you quote a verse that says honorary degrees from Bible colleges are wrong?

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.. (Matthew 23:1-12 NIV)

Compare that quote from scripture with this, from your pal's web site:

Although they may not have achieved secular educational levels to graduate with a degree, they have achieved a great knowledge in the Word of God. These men have chosen to represent the Oneness Doctrine in the face of being called a cult leader, or even railed upon because they rejected the trinity doctrine. ... This deserves honor! (Source)

and

A Minister or Pastor who qualifies for the D.Th has no reason to be condemned or ashamed to make themselves equal to or even superior to those who have a doctorate from some secular or religious institution. Many of these graduate with a piece of paper but they do not measure to the accomplishments of our senior labors in the Apostolic ranks. In fact, those who qualify for our D.Th far excel those with a doctorate obtained sitting in classrooms. Our Brethren obtained their education as life experience right in the house of God where the Holy Spirit replaced sinful and ungodly instructors and professors.


Our D.Th is a reward for accomplishments according to our own set of religious standards. (Source)

How do you explain that one?

You also claimed that many well known universities grant doctoral degrees for $1,300 and you've yet to provide evidence of any accredited universities doing that today. Do you have such a list, or not?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

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.

Good, so if that is the Gospel by which we stand, and which we are saved by, please explain why the gospel doesn't mention baptism as a prerequisite. Did Paul forget that? The "for" in Acts 2:38 should be read as "because of". For in English has more than one denotative usage.

Not everyone who hears the gospel preached are saved. The gospel requires a faith action in response. That faith action is given in Acts 2:38, right after Peter preached the gospel. Those who take that faith action then stand in and are saved by the gospel.

A person cannot be saved before having faith and therefore "for" cannot mean "because of" in this case.

So if a person goes to jail "for" stealing that means they are going to jail to steal things or they are going because they have stolen things already?

reply to post by adjensen

And how do you know that Luke wasn't there?

Because Acts and Luke are pieces of historical fiction where the author puts the words in the character's mouths that the writer imagines they would have said.
There is plenty of evidence internally, for what it is.
Why is it Acts never mentions Paul ever writing any letters?
Because he was never with Paul.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

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

Probably not a good idea to wait around too long for an answer, and to go ahead and proceed with whatever your argument is.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

And how do you know that Luke wasn't there?

Because Acts and Luke are pieces of historical fiction where the author puts the words in the character's mouths that the writer imagines they would have said.

Aha. So he also wrote Matthew and Mark, eh? Or at least inserted his "imagined words" into those texts, where they overlap? Quite the conspiracy there.

Why is it Acts never mentions Paul ever writing any letters?

Gee, it also neglects telling us whether he had a dog, how much he sold his tents for and what his shoe size was. So what?

All of Paul's letters were in general circulation before or during the time that Acts was being written, so it seems unlikely that the author was unaware of them. Maybe Luke simply didn't feel the need to be "Captain Obvious" and skipped including irrelevant and obvious things like "By the way, Paul wrote all those letters you've been reading. You know, the ones signed 'Paul'."

Your claim to have known who was present for Peter's speech, and who did, or didn't, write Acts, requires too much assumption on your part.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

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

Probably not a good idea to wait around too long for an answer, and to go ahead and proceed with whatever your argument is.

Not if the purpose of my question was an attempt to induce introspection, which it was.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The "for" in Acts 2:38 should be read as "because of". For in English has more than one denotative usage.

You should actually study Greek rather than listen to YouTube videos by people who claim to understand it.
The word is a preposition, eis, which means, into.
You could have an argument if it was peri or dia.
So you end up with it saying literally, to be baptized into the forgiveness of sins.
I suppose you have some other way to be forgiven of your sins, that is not mentioned here.
The ultimate way to be forgiven is to accept the spirit that leads to a life that is not encumbered by sinfulness, the baptism being the forgiveness of those sins you committed before receiving the spirit.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Not if the purpose of my question was an attempt to induce introspection, which it was.

Another delusion you are under if you imagine these little disjointed quips are thought provoking.
If you have something of value to add, just come out and say it and quit wasting people's time and annoyance.

reply to post by adjensen

Aha. So he also wrote Matthew and Mark, eh? Or at least inserted his "imagined words" into those texts, where they overlap? Quite the conspiracy there.

No, and I doubt that you really want the answer but rather enjoy mocking people.
You could educate yourself by reading some books on the subject like I did.

Gee, it also neglects telling us whether he had a dog, how much he sold his tents for and what his shoe size was. So what?

This is really asinine. What do you do to prepare for writing posts, watch videos of comedians? The "so what" is that the writer of Acts actually knew almost nothing about what went on among the Apostles, so is not authoritative for theological use or historical hardly, though there are some facts in there that we would not know otherwise but even then, proceed with caution.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

Aha. So he also wrote Matthew and Mark, eh? Or at least inserted his "imagined words" into those texts, where they overlap? Quite the conspiracy there.

No, and I doubt that you really want the answer but rather enjoy mocking people.
You could educate yourself by reading some books on the subject like I did.

I've read plenty of them, and the majority, in the past twenty years or so, reflect agendas -- whether the "historical Jesus" crowd, like the Jesus seminar, who begin with the premise that Jesus wasn't divine and work their way out from there, to academics needing to make a name for themselves in a tired field, to "textual critics", who apply 21st Century writing standards to 1st Century document and cry foul when they don't match. There was one Doctor of Theology who disputed the fact of Paul knowing any other leader in the Christian community, based on one sentence.

That's folly. So please refrain from claiming the "I know better than you" high road -- I've studied, and my cynical nature has led me to a different conclusion.

Gee, it also neglects telling us whether he had a dog, how much he sold his tents for and what his shoe size was. So what?

This is really asinine. What do you do to prepare for writing posts, watch videos of comedians? The "so what" is that the writer of Acts actually knew almost nothing about what went on among the Apostles, so is not authoritative for theological use or historical hardly, though there are some facts in there that we would not know otherwise but even then, proceed with caution.

No, you've concluded (well, whoever you're citing has concluded) that "the writer of Acts actually knew almost nothing," because of a biased predilection to believing that. Luke is generally held to be an exemplary and thorough researcher and writer, so your dismissal of him because "he didn't mention Paul's letters" is as asinine as my noting the lack of other irrelevant trivia.

reply to post by adjensen

I've read plenty of them, and the majority, in the past twenty years or so, reflect agendas -- whether the "historical Jesus" crowd, like the Jesus seminar, who begin with the premise that Jesus wasn't divine and work their way out from there, to academics needing to make a name for themselves in a tired field, to "textual critics", who apply 21st Century writing standards to 1st Century document and cry foul when they don't match. There was one Doctor of Theology who disputed the fact of Paul knowing any other leader in the Christian community, based on one sentence.

Then you wasted a lot of time reading the wrong books. Because you made poor choices in the past does not mean that there are not good books out their.

That's folly. So please refrain from claiming the "I know better than you" high road -- I've studied, and my cynical nature has led me to a different conclusion.

Such as . . ?
I don't notice much of that scholarship coming from you, as indicated by your sarcastic questions.

Luke is generally held to be an exemplary and thorough researcher and writer, so your dismissal of him because "he didn't mention Paul's letters" is as asinine as my noting the lack of other irrelevant trivia.

He was, in the genre of the historical novel. He did research and wrote, but that does not mean he was anywhere near the scene of where these stories supposedly took place.
The idea that the Letters of Paul is just so much trivia seems ridiculous to me.

No, you've concluded (well, whoever you're citing has concluded) that "the writer of Acts actually knew almost nothing," because of a biased predilection to believing that.

No because there are well known contradictions and things that are out of place and things borrowed from other writers, like a travel guide which he used to make a sailing story out of.

reply to post by adjensen


Matthew 23 does not say anything about honorary degrees from a Bible College.

The person who contacts Pastor Reckart about the honorary degree does not give the degree to their self. It is Pastor Reckart who awards the degree. I do not see what Matthew 23 has to do with that.

It is really no different than someone seeking a degree from attending classes. Both have to meet the requirements and be qualified.

I did not say that other colleges have honorary degrees for $1300. I said that many well known universities do give honorary degrees. I gave one example. Here is a link about honorary degrees.

Honorary College Degrees

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

So if a person goes to jail "for" stealing that means they are going to jail to steal things or they are going because they have stolen things already?

I said in this case, it cannot mean "because of". I did not say that it never can in any case.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Matthew 23 does not say anything about honorary degrees from a Bible College.

The person who contacts Pastor Reckart about the honorary degree does not give the degree to their self. It is Pastor Reckart who awards the degree. I do not see what Matthew 23 has to do with that.

It is really no different than someone seeking a degree from attending classes. Both have to meet the requirements and be qualified.

Baloney. Read that description, Reckart is all about the title, "the honour you deserve" and "being the equal or superior" to those who took the time, money and effort to earn a degree. That's 100% counter to Matthew 23, and you're lying if you say otherwise.

The requirements and qualifications for Reckart's "degree" are arbitrary and whatever he wants them to be.

Is this "Bible College" accredited? How many on campus undergrads and graduate students are there? How many actual college graduates on the faculty? Does Reckart have an actual Doctorate of Theology?

I did not say that other colleges have honorary degrees for $1300. I said that many well known universities do give honorary degrees. I gave one example. Here is a link about honorary degrees.

Honorary College Degrees

Here is a better description of Reckart's diploma mill: Diploma Mills: Degrees of Deception