Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

page: 35
13
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
The apostles always baptized in the name of Jesus according to the book of Acts, their own writings, the writings of those who followed, and scholars of Church history. In addition, whether Jesus stated Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or not is debated among scholars due to the fact that the apostles did not baptize that way and that it is different than Luke's telling of what Jesus said.

So your answer is "no, there is no evidence that people were never baptized in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." As I said, apart from your reasons for it, there is nothing wrong with the "Jesus only" baptism, so whether the Apostles did it or not is of no consequence.

Thank you for clearing that up.


It is time to leave your brainwashed state behind and accept the evidence.

Sure, I'm the one who can't think rationally and defends all my positions with emotionalism.




posted on May, 5 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Sure, I'm the one who can't think rationally and defends all my positions with emotionalism.


You have been given evidence that baptism was only in the name of Jesus Christ, the only name given by which we must be saved and yet you reject it. That is not thinking rationally.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Sure, I'm the one who can't think rationally and defends all my positions with emotionalism.


You have been given evidence that baptism was only in the name of Jesus Christ

Again, you have NOT provided evidence to defend this absolute statement. Just because some people did baptize that way does not mean that everyone did. If Christ said to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then it is highly unlikely that no one did (and yes, I do know that some dispute that, but the fact remains that it is there, and it is there in every known copy of the New Testament, apart from your fake "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.")



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 



Paul would have been aware of Peter's message since it was an essential Christian doctrine.


Ahh.. so "essential" that he didn't bother to even mention it in a verse so monumentally critical to who would be saved or not saved in Romans 10:9-10?


As I said before, the members of the Church at Rome already were saved. They knew that what Paul wrote, did not take away from the necessity of repentance and water baptism.


Romans is inspired scripture of the Holy Spirit is it not? Do you expect anyone to believe that the Holy Spirit was clueless that the book of Romans would be used as the definitive epistle of Christian doctrine for the next 2,000 years? You have such an incompetent view of God that He both is incomplete, forgetting to add essential details in verses about exactly what saves a person, and incompetent to realize when inspiring His scripture to be written to know that millions of believers and others would look to His Words in need of Biblical systematic theology on such monumental matters as soeteriology.

The Lord God I worship is infinitely more perfect and exact in detail than that.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


No name scholars?

You've never heard of Matthew Henry?



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Sure, I'm the one who can't think rationally and defends all my positions with emotionalism.


You have been given evidence that baptism was only in the name of Jesus Christ

Again, you have NOT provided evidence to defend this absolute statement. Just because some people did baptize that way does not mean that everyone did. If Christ said to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then it is highly unlikely that no one did (and yes, I do know that some dispute that, but the fact remains that it is there, and it is there in every known copy of the New Testament, apart from your fake "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.")


It was not just some people who baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, it was the apostles. The apostles are the foundation of the Church.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 



Paul would have been aware of Peter's message since it was an essential Christian doctrine.


Ahh.. so "essential" that he didn't bother to even mention it in a verse so monumentally critical to who would be saved or not saved in Romans 10:9-10?


As I said before, the members of the Church at Rome already were saved. They knew that what Paul wrote, did not take away from the necessity of repentance and water baptism.


Romans is inspired scripture of the Holy Spirit is it not? Do you expect anyone to believe that the Holy Spirit was clueless that the book of Romans would be used as the definitive epistle of Christian doctrine for the next 2,000 years? You have such an incompetent view of God that He both is incomplete, forgetting to add essential details in verses about exactly what saves a person, and incompetent to realize when inspiring His scripture to be written to know that millions of believers and others would look to His Words in need of Biblical systematic theology on such monumental matters as soeteriology.

The Lord God I worship is infinitely more perfect and exact in detail than that.


As I said before, those who the book of Romans was written to, had already repented and been baptized. They knew what Paul was speaking of.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


No name scholars?

You've never heard of Matthew Henry?


Can you post a quote of him teaching your no name baptism?



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Sure can.


Secondly, This baptism must be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. That is, 1. By authority from heaven, and not of man; for his ministers act by authority from the three persons in the Godhead, who all concur, as to our creation, so to our redemption; they have their commission under the great seal of heaven, which puts an honour upon the ordinance, though to a carnal eye, like him that instituted it, it has no form or comeliness. 2. Calling upon the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Every thing is sanctified by prayer, and particularly the waters of baptism. The prayer of faith obtains the presence of God with the ordinance, which is its lustre and beauty, its life and efficacy. But, 3. It is into the name (eis to onoma) of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; this was intended as the summary of the first principles of the Christian religion, and of the new covenant, and according to it the ancient creeds were drawn up. By our being baptized, we solemnly profess, (1.) Our assent to the scripture-revelation concerning God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We confess our belief that there is a God, that there is but one God, that in the Godhead there is a Father that begets, a Son that is begotten, and a Holy Spirit of both. We are baptized, not into the names, but into the name, of Father, Son, and Spirit, which plainly intimates that these three are one, and their name one. The distinct mentioning of the three persons in the Trinity, both in the Christian baptism here, and in the Christian blessing (2 Co. 13:14), as it is a full proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, so it has done much towards preserving it pure and entire through all ages of the church; for nothing is more great and awful in Christian assemblies than these two. (2.) Our consent to a covenant-relation to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Baptism is a sacrament, that is, it is an oath; super sacramentum dicere, is to say upon oath. It is an oath of abjuration, by which we renounce the world and the flesh, as rivals with God for the throne in our hearts; and an oath of allegiance, by which we resign and give up ourselves to God, to be his, our own selves, our whole selves, body, soul, and spirit, to be governed by his will, and made happy in his favour; we become his men, so the form of homage in our law runs. Therefore baptism is applied to the person, as livery and seisin is given of the premises, because it is the person that is dedicated to God. [1.] It is into the name of the Father, believing him to be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (for that is principally intended here), by eternal generation, and our Father, as our Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor, to whom therefore we resign ourselves, as our absolute owner and proprietor, to actuate us, and dispose of us; as our supreme rector and governor, to rule us, as free agents, by his law; and as our chief good, and highest end. [2.] It is into the name of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and correlate to the Father. Baptism was in a particular manner administered in the name of the Lord Jesus, Acts 8:16; 19:5. In baptism we assent, as Peter did, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God (ch. 16:16), and consent, as Thomas did, My Lord, and my God, Jn. 20:28. We take Christ to be our Prophet, Priest, and King, and give up ourselves to be taught, and saved, and ruled, by him. [3.] It is into the name of the Holy Ghost. Believing the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, and his agency in carrying on our redemption, we give up ourselves to his conduct and operation, as our sanctifier, teacher, guide, and comforter.



Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary, Matthew 28.


That makes this a false statement:


In addition, there are no reputable scholars that teach a no name baptism as you are teaching..


;


edit on 5-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 



Paul would have been aware of Peter's message since it was an essential Christian doctrine.


Ahh.. so "essential" that he didn't bother to even mention it in a verse so monumentally critical to who would be saved or not saved in Romans 10:9-10?


As I said before, the members of the Church at Rome already were saved. They knew that what Paul wrote, did not take away from the necessity of repentance and water baptism.


Romans is inspired scripture of the Holy Spirit is it not? Do you expect anyone to believe that the Holy Spirit was clueless that the book of Romans would be used as the definitive epistle of Christian doctrine for the next 2,000 years? You have such an incompetent view of God that He both is incomplete, forgetting to add essential details in verses about exactly what saves a person, and incompetent to realize when inspiring His scripture to be written to know that millions of believers and others would look to His Words in need of Biblical systematic theology on such monumental matters as soeteriology.

The Lord God I worship is infinitely more perfect and exact in detail than that.


As I said before, those who the book of Romans was written to, had already repented and been baptized. They knew what Paul was speaking of.


So what was the point of instructing them on things they already knew? You think Paul, and the Holy Spirit, had no idea that seekers would not use the book of Romans?



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 

Dear truejew,

I am always disappointed with myself when I fail to convey my meaning.

My original goal was to discuss the topic. It has since become to defend the Church against attacks from Adjensen, NOTurTypical, Colbie.
Ok, fine. Let's assume for a moment that's absolutely true. It is a fine thing for one to defend his church and beliefs. It is also appropriate to point out falsehood where it is found. So you, and others are in a "spirited" discussion. I get it.

But I'm not in this fight, at least not yet, and I'm asking for something else. Allow me to paraphrase my original question.

1) Are you fighting for the sake of fighting? Some people do, look at the debate forum. Fine with me if that's the case.

2) Are you teaching? If so, give me some of the teachings of your church so I can get an idea of your religious "framework." Without some fairly comprehensive, overall guide, I'm forced to try to piece it together a sentence at a time.

3) Are you persuading people that they're wrong and you're right? No offense intended, but that doesn't seem to be working out very well. Maybe if you changed your style?

I understand that you and some others are having a knockdown dragout. But what am I, or any other reader of this thread, supposed to get from your efforts here?

Teach me your church's beliefs, explain them, make them clear, then welcome questions.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Sure, I'm the one who can't think rationally and defends all my positions with emotionalism.


You have been given evidence that baptism was only in the name of Jesus Christ, the only name given by which we must be saved and yet you reject it. That is not thinking rationally.


How does that phrase go truejew? "____> _____>, pants on fire."

Christians baptized in the name of the Blessed Trinity as Jesus commands, now for almost 2000 years.

Matt 28:19
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Sure, I'm the one who can't think rationally and defends all my positions with emotionalism.


You have been given evidence that baptism was only in the name of Jesus Christ, the only name given by which we must be saved and yet you reject it. That is not thinking rationally.


How does that phrase go truejew? "____> _____>, pants on fire."

Christians baptized in the name of the Blessed Trinity as Jesus commands, now for almost 2000 years.

Matt 28:19
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The leaders of his church intentionally change their copies of the Bible to match what they teach -- their Bibles, for example, do not have Matthew 28:19. I saw a Facebook post where one of them was asked which Bible translation they used, and he said "we use any of them, we just take out the lies first."



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Dear adjensen,

I really hate to get drawn into this, but....

The leaders of his church intentionally change their copies of the Bible to match what they teach -- their Bibles, for example, do not have Matthew 28:19. I saw a Facebook post where one of them was asked which Bible translation they used, and he said "we use any of them, we just take out the lies first."
Is this true? I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just stunned. How can this be? What is his church? What authority is there for removing (or adding) to the Bible?

HEY TRUEJEW, YOU GOT SOME 'SPLAININ' TO DO!

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


PM'd you some screenshots, Charles. They contain personal information that would possibly violate T&C if they were posted publicly.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Sure can.


Secondly, This baptism must be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. That is, 1. By authority from heaven, and not of man; for his ministers act by authority from the three persons in the Godhead, who all concur, as to our creation, so to our redemption; they have their commission under the great seal of heaven, which puts an honour upon the ordinance, though to a carnal eye, like him that instituted it, it has no form or comeliness. 2. Calling upon the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Every thing is sanctified by prayer, and particularly the waters of baptism. The prayer of faith obtains the presence of God with the ordinance, which is its lustre and beauty, its life and efficacy. But, 3. It is into the name (eis to onoma) of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; this was intended as the summary of the first principles of the Christian religion, and of the new covenant, and according to it the ancient creeds were drawn up. By our being baptized, we solemnly profess, (1.) Our assent to the scripture-revelation concerning God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We confess our belief that there is a God, that there is but one God, that in the Godhead there is a Father that begets, a Son that is begotten, and a Holy Spirit of both. We are baptized, not into the names, but into the name, of Father, Son, and Spirit, which plainly intimates that these three are one, and their name one. The distinct mentioning of the three persons in the Trinity, both in the Christian baptism here, and in the Christian blessing (2 Co. 13:14), as it is a full proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, so it has done much towards preserving it pure and entire through all ages of the church; for nothing is more great and awful in Christian assemblies than these two. (2.) Our consent to a covenant-relation to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Baptism is a sacrament, that is, it is an oath; super sacramentum dicere, is to say upon oath. It is an oath of abjuration, by which we renounce the world and the flesh, as rivals with God for the throne in our hearts; and an oath of allegiance, by which we resign and give up ourselves to God, to be his, our own selves, our whole selves, body, soul, and spirit, to be governed by his will, and made happy in his favour; we become his men, so the form of homage in our law runs. Therefore baptism is applied to the person, as livery and seisin is given of the premises, because it is the person that is dedicated to God. [1.] It is into the name of the Father, believing him to be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (for that is principally intended here), by eternal generation, and our Father, as our Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor, to whom therefore we resign ourselves, as our absolute owner and proprietor, to actuate us, and dispose of us; as our supreme rector and governor, to rule us, as free agents, by his law; and as our chief good, and highest end. [2.] It is into the name of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and correlate to the Father. Baptism was in a particular manner administered in the name of the Lord Jesus, Acts 8:16; 19:5. In baptism we assent, as Peter did, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God (ch. 16:16), and consent, as Thomas did, My Lord, and my God, Jn. 20:28. We take Christ to be our Prophet, Priest, and King, and give up ourselves to be taught, and saved, and ruled, by him. [3.] It is into the name of the Holy Ghost. Believing the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, and his agency in carrying on our redemption, we give up ourselves to his conduct and operation, as our sanctifier, teacher, guide, and comforter.



Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary, Matthew 28.


That makes this a false statement:


In addition, there are no reputable scholars that teach a no name baptism as you are teaching..


;


edit on 5-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


He says that baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not the no name baptism that you and Adjensen seem to be pushing.

No name baptism is a fairly new doctrine, I believe it comes from the Church of Christ denomination, which interestingly appears on some cult lists.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 



Paul would have been aware of Peter's message since it was an essential Christian doctrine.


Ahh.. so "essential" that he didn't bother to even mention it in a verse so monumentally critical to who would be saved or not saved in Romans 10:9-10?


As I said before, the members of the Church at Rome already were saved. They knew that what Paul wrote, did not take away from the necessity of repentance and water baptism.


Romans is inspired scripture of the Holy Spirit is it not? Do you expect anyone to believe that the Holy Spirit was clueless that the book of Romans would be used as the definitive epistle of Christian doctrine for the next 2,000 years? You have such an incompetent view of God that He both is incomplete, forgetting to add essential details in verses about exactly what saves a person, and incompetent to realize when inspiring His scripture to be written to know that millions of believers and others would look to His Words in need of Biblical systematic theology on such monumental matters as soeteriology.

The Lord God I worship is infinitely more perfect and exact in detail than that.


As I said before, those who the book of Romans was written to, had already repented and been baptized. They knew what Paul was speaking of.


So what was the point of instructing them on things they already knew? You think Paul, and the Holy Spirit, had no idea that seekers would not use the book of Romans?


The book of Romans was written to the Church, not seekers. Don't you think the Holy Spirit created man with the intelligence to understand the facts?



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen and truejew
 

Dear adjensen,

Thank you for the information, I looked into it a little and found myself surprised and saddened. I won't go into detail, but Satan must be laughing his repulsive little horns off.

With respect,
Charles1952
___________________________________________________________________________

Dear truejew,

I don't think I've done this before, but truejew, I will beg you. Please, consider, we are all Christian brothers. Is your stance promoting Unity and Love? Is the form of Baptism something to condemn your brothers over? Look at the fruits of the tree you've planted here. Are they good? Are they encouraging your brothers and sending them on their way refreshed?

Jesus had no trouble violating Jewish law when it concerned assisting His followers. Are you so sure, that He is such a stickler on this point? There were people martyred before they could be baptized. Is a baptism in their own blood unacceptable? Are they condemned to Hell?

Please, truejew, in my opinion there is nothing on earth (except the Host) more holy than a believer, treat them well, support and encourage them, love them and accept them.

I wish I had the words I need, but even in my silence I will beg you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by adjensen
 

Dear adjensen,

I really hate to get drawn into this, but....

The leaders of his church intentionally change their copies of the Bible to match what they teach -- their Bibles, for example, do not have Matthew 28:19. I saw a Facebook post where one of them was asked which Bible translation they used, and he said "we use any of them, we just take out the lies first."
Is this true? I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just stunned. How can this be? What is his church? What authority is there for removing (or adding) to the Bible?

HEY TRUEJEW, YOU GOT SOME 'SPLAININ' TO DO!

With respect,
Charles1952


It is false. We do not change the Bible to match what we teach as claimed. Matthew 28:19, as it appears in most Bible versions today, is considered to be a questionable verse. Even by some trinitarian scholars. It does not match Luke's account of what Jesus said and what the apostles did does match Luke's account, not Matthew's account.

While we do believe that Matthew 28:19, as it appears in most Bibles, is not correct, we do not change it just to match what we believe. It is due to the evidence.

I have to wonder what Adjensen thinks about the NIV changing of 1 John 5:7.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I do see that you have a different standard for me than you have for them. Why do you think that I must see them as brothers when they obviously don't see me as a brother? They call me "cultist" and "witch", not "brother".

Also, is a person a brother in Christ if they have never been baptized into Christ?
edit on 6-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
13
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join