Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Do not be deceived by Adjensen's false accusations and slander against us.

The name Jesus is not a magical formula; the sound waves reverberating from the spoken name do not remit sin or bring other special powers. However, when we call the name Jesus in faith, Jesus responds. The Name represents His presence and work. We must have personal faith in Jesus for the name to have any meaning and for anything to happen (Acts 3:16; 10:43).

- The New Birth by David K. Bernard pg. 164


If we are witches as Adjensen claims, then the apostles would be also, for they baptized in the name of Jesus also.

reply to post by truejew

David K. Bernard leads the UPC and he does not possess the Spirit of a Prophet.

-- Gary Reckart

You need to find another source -- Reckart says that Bernard is an "idiot", a "liar", and hell-bound.

reply to post by adjensen


On this topic, he teaches as we do.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Well what is your answer, yes or no?

Matthew 26:62 KJV
[62] And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

Yeah, sorry. I'm kinda stupid and you have to seriously dumb it down for me so I can understand you. Is your answer "yes" or is it "no".

An even more simple Y or N will be sufficient for me to understand.

Originally posted by truejew
Do not be deceived by Adjensen's false accusations and slander against us.

The name Jesus is not a magical formula; the sound waves reverberating from the spoken name do not remit sin or bring other special powers. However, when we call the name Jesus in faith, Jesus responds. The Name represents His presence and work. We must have personal faith in Jesus for the name to have any meaning and for anything to happen (Acts 3:16; 10:43).

- The New Birth by David K. Bernard pg. 164

Against "us"?

Who else is here agreeing with your doctrine?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


There are others in the Church.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Dear vethumanbeing,

Thanks, I've got a lot to learn. But I have to admit I don't think I would have done anything differently (assuming I could go back to where I was when I wrote the thread), and I'm not sure what you think I should have done.

With respect,
Charles1952

ITS all about a pin point of conversation YOU provided, right out of your own smarts and intuition (thus allowing us to contribute to your dialoge), FUN STUFF. Never second guess intent, as it was meant to be. You cannot be wrong in intention as it is PURE because you allow for discussion; almost like a jury sequestered without a judge or judgement impending. My point lost now regained DO NOT CHANGE A THING (I fly by the seat of my own conviction) Regards VHB.

Originally posted by Snsoc

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Snsoc

 

How many pages, if any thread described nations fighting over belief systemology this one is it; Congratulations To All Of You for posing as the Micro-dynamics of worldwide religious dicotomism, murder JUSTIFIED and self-determinism; (my belief system is the better one, because my God DOES NOT LOVE YOU I CaN kILl you with no impunity). Here is the interesting thing observed, you are apologetic without conceeding to an error of judgement, almost as if waiting to be told you may have misjudged a situation; a movement: a religion. You must know the organized are frowned upon by Satan, smiled upon by God.

/snsoc
Hey, I do what I can.But seriously...I warned early on that this kind of arguing didn't look good in front of the world-but nobody paid attention to me. 34 pages later and we're still stuck on whether or not baptism saves you and if truejew is in a cult or not.Hey! Why don't you join our religion so you can bicker, like us? What's wrong? Where are you going? Come back here and experience the joy of Christ, dammit!

Speak for yourself if truejew or the catholic wants to belong to a cultish (seemingly) gathering of complete and like minded souls, who is it to quell it (Roman Centurians the visigoths). I dont know, all religious dictions seem persecuted one way or the other. Is this Satans way of saying Organize it and you are done for? Jesus emphatically said "the kingdom of HEAVEN" was his church, not of THIS EARTH (have a feeling he would see a potencial for misinterpretation). Corruption as positive and constant companion to POWER, WEALTH and control of the populace. I think the bickering would end in bloodshed, even a birthday party might end badly; I WILL COME BACK, with body armour, no weapons, bring a styrofoam cross just in case anyone wants to relive the "PASSION". Sounds like it could be a fun party (I will bring the wine).

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Snsoc

 

How many pages, if any thread described nations fighting over belief systemology this one is it; Congratulations To All Of You for posing as the Micro-dynamics of worldwide religious dicotomism, murder JUSTIFIED and self-determinism; (my belief system is the better one, because my God DOES NOT LOVE YOU I CaN kILl you with no impunity). Here is the interesting thing observed, you are apologetic without conceeding to an error of judgement, almost as if waiting to be told you may have misjudged a situation; a movement: a religion. You must know the organized are frowned upon by Satan, smiled upon by God.

edit on 6-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Well, sometimes dialogues get into theology. That is what this forum is partially about.

Lets start a new dialoge compress it and form a brand new religion; what would it be called : new thoughts "GOOD NEWS FOLKS" regarding the passive aggressive thoughts of FTS contributors. We would have to get the canon from this forum (plenty of information to edit salvage and the Vatican will bind the only copy burn the rest) would ATS give it up? Any suggestions to the name of the new religion: Copesthetic Dragons (no street gang affiliation). Its been done recently with the Mormans. Tenent: God displaced its child and has to run this universe because of malfeasence mismanagement of resources and general laziness.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

There are others in the Church.

Which church?

Who else from your church is here? Who are you speaking to?

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Snsoc

 

How many pages, if any thread described nations fighting over belief systemology this one is it; Congratulations To All Of You for posing as the Micro-dynamics of worldwide religious dicotomism, murder JUSTIFIED and self-determinism; (my belief system is the better one, because my God DOES NOT LOVE YOU I CaN kILl you with no impunity). Here is the interesting thing observed, you are apologetic without conceeding to an error of judgement, almost as if waiting to be told you may have misjudged a situation; a movement: a religion. You must know the organized are frowned upon by Satan, smiled upon by God.

edit on 6-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Well, sometimes dialogues get into theology. That is what this forum is partially about.

Lets start a new one, what would it be called : new thoughts "GOOD NEWS FOLKS" regarding the passive aggressive thoughts of FTS contributors. We would have to get the canon from this forum (plenty of information to edit salvage and the Vatican will bind the only copy burn the rest) would ATS give it up?

Go for it if you want, do you know how to make a thread?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Go for it if you want, do you know how to make a thread?

Sure, I have one going now, its called "why was Jesus not allowed to procreate, he was afterall human"

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Go for it if you want, do you know how to make a thread?

Sure, I have one going now, its called "why was Jesus not allowed to procreate, he was afterall human"

Oh. Okay, well then make another one with that new topic you're interested in.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Everyone with the same thoughtform would have to contribute to a new idea. Not sure its allowed here (but you never know). There have been stellar moments of brilliant discussion, that support a new idea, I am not alone and this is not about discrediting anyone, God, Jesus, believers, non-believers, Gnostics (that of which I am). Its if its allowed on this forum to do something quite original. There is so much good information, questions answers to not make for a very good explaination of everything, tacit profound knowledge.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Which church?

Does God have more than one Church?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Who else from your church is here?

Did I say there were others here?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Who are you speaking to?

I thought I was currently typing to you.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

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.

Well, I cannot help you there. I have been saying that baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is just as valid a form of baptism for a Christian, it's the method Christ instructed the disciple to baptize believers with. My apologies, I assumed when you said "no name" baptism you meant the Matthew 28:19 version because there are no names spoken.

No, I was speaking of the doctrine that it does not matter what is said, that even a silent, no name baptism is valid.

This is not true, for Baptism to be valid it must be done with water and in the name the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Adjenson, I saw your reply about the "oneness'" sect CHANGING/DELETING words in Scripture to fit their new belief. Same as the Jehovah Witnesses. I do not know which sect came first?

I must share again because it is important. The heresy of "faith alone", people will not let go of it, so much error stems from this heresy, for example, professing works is the result of faith. No way, we are not robots. Faith does not make you do anything.

Some Protestants insist that it is the faith that does the work in us NOT we ourselves. Faith (God's gift to man through His Word / Eph 2:8; Rom 10: 17) is a necessary motivation for us to obey but it does NOT make us obey. Man has a choice to resist or yield, therefore the obedience is our responsibility. It is our obedience in response to faith that brings justification (and Eternal Life). Justification then brings "perfect" or "complete" faith, the proof we have that Eternal Life (See John 3:36!). Further, Eternal Life is something we possess in degrees and that corresponds to how close we have grown to Christ. It is Eternal Life we are given NOT a promise of the eternal possession of that life. That Life, however, is so powerful that nothing in all the universe, but one's own self will and sin, can remove us from Christ's hand (Romans 8:35-39).

reply to post by colbe


I was saying that that is what the no name baptism doctrine teaches, not that I agree with it. As I have said over and over... Baptism must be in Jesus name.

You really should learn to not take someone's words out of context.

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

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.

Well, I cannot help you there. I have been saying that baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is just as valid a form of baptism for a Christian, it's the method Christ instructed the disciple to baptize believers with. My apologies, I assumed when you said "no name" baptism you meant the Matthew 28:19 version because there are no names spoken.

No, I was speaking of the doctrine that it does not matter what is said, that even a silent, no name baptism is valid.

This is not true, for Baptism to be valid it must be done with water and in the name the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That was me, not TrueJew, and I'm not promoting any particular formula -- my belief is that it doesn't matter, and I came across something recently that said that the Catholic Church accepts a "Jesus Only" baptism as legitimate, unless it is intentionally done to reinforce a disbelief in the Trinity, so they seem to be of the same mind -- it isn't the words, it is the belief.

(ETA: I may have to take that back -- I can't find the source document that I read, and I have found statements by the RCC that "only a F,S, HG baptism is valid", but also statements saying not to re-baptize "Jesus only" Christians (as opposed to "Jesus only" non-Trinitarians,) so I just don't know for sure.)

Adjenson, I saw your reply about the "oneness'" sect CHANGING/DELETING words in Scripture to fit their new belief. Same as the Jehovah Witnesses. I do not know which sect came first?

Jehovah's Witnesses are from the 1800s, the Apostolic Oneness thing started in the early 1900s, so the JWs are older.

The main Oneness group is the United Pentecostal Church, and I've never seen anything that indicates that they have changed the Bible (they deal with Matthew 28:19 theologically, not by removing it.) TrueJew's "church" is a splinter group of that splinter group, led by a real estate agent in Florida named Gary Reckart, dates from the 1990s, and they're the ones that I have seen testify to changing the Bible to "take out the lies."

My best guess is that there aren't more than a hundred followers of Gary Reckart and, as he says everyone else (including, and especially, the United Pentecostal Church,) is going to hell for various (irrational) reasons, heaven sounds like it's going to be a pretty empty place.

reply to post by truejew


Oh, okay. The way you typed "we" sorta implied that you were a Christian and no one else was.

It is incorrect that oneness began in the 1900's. Even trinitarian scholars will say that it dates back to the 3rd century AD. The truth is that the apostles were oneness. The first bishop of the Roman Church to be trinitarian was Urban in 222AD.