Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by charles1952


Do you really think that we should bid God speed to people who call Jesus "pig god"?

That is what Pastor Reckart was speaking of.


2 John 1:9-11 KJV
[9] Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. [10] If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: [11] For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

reply to post by charles1952

I suppose that the gentleman who somehow became the topic of discussion is not quite up on the facts.

he wrote:

When I first started writing about restoring the Passover of Jesus back in the early 80s, I knew of no one who held the annual evening according to the Jewish calendar. After it was revealed to me,

And yet, when I was a member (3 whole weeks) of this group: The Living Word Fellowship back in 1973, I read the literature on restoring the Passover according to the Jewish calendar. And in 1975, I read the same sort of literature making the same claim put out by the Davidians, who would later be known as the Branch Davidians.

But yet, astonishing enough, the people I mentioned in my post to Truejew, worshipers of something first mentioned in the Talmud, were of a different group, strict Trinitarian Pentecostals of a Dispensational emphasis.

This raises the question: Is it the size and or popularity of a group that determines whether it is branded as a cult?

In my opinion, given the complexity of the religious landscape, it may be safest to assume that in some way, God knows which individuals are His.

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

Were I to go to England and ask to see a "football game," I would end up at a soccer game. Are the English wrong? No. They just have a different meaning for the word than I do. Neither speaker is "wrong," they are just different.

If someone uses the word Jehovah, and I find out from them that they mean "pig god," I wouldn't call them a believer, but I wouldn't shun them and refuse to talk to them either. If I find out that, to them, Jehovah means "God the Father as described in the Old Testament," I'll have a lot less trouble with them.

The meaning which the speaker intends is more important than the word used.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by adjensen

I'm sorry, but I've looked and I can find no scripture that says heretics should simply be ignored.

I think the only place where the word is used the way we understand it today, would be in 2 Peter, which is probably a later forgery anyway.
It originally meant to have your own opinion, then later became someone not "orthodox", which is also not in the Bible.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by truejew

 

Dear truejew,

Were I to go to England and ask to see a "football game," I would end up at a soccer game. Are the English wrong? No. They just have a different meaning for the word than I do. Neither speaker is "wrong," they are just different.

If someone uses the word Jehovah, and I find out from them that they mean "pig god," I wouldn't call them a believer, but I wouldn't shun them and refuse to talk to them either. If I find out that, to them, Jehovah means "God the Father as described in the Old Testament," I'll have a lot less trouble with them.

The meaning which the speaker intends is more important than the word used.

With respect,
Charles1952

We are not speaking of just a difference of words, but of blasphemers who hate Jesus Christ.

reply to post by truejew

I think that scholars generally agree that 1,2,& 3 John were written by the same individual.

Some years ago, 2003(?), I was struck by a certain irony.

2 John gave some standards for who and who not to have fellowship with. 3 John is written after the author himself had been disfellowshipped.

The author's criterion seemed to be whether or not someone believed that Jesus Christ had come( I may have the tenses wrong) in the flesh. Because of my particular bias, I would take the deniers to include Talmud following individuals who call themselves Messianic Jews (and those taught by them) who consider some future Messianic appearance to be more significant than what had already occurred.

In the case of 3 John, the disfellowshipper's ( one Diotrephes ) criterion seemed to be whether or not people recognized his authority over them.(3 John 9,10).

The author then seems to have a fallback position, " 11 Beloved, don’t imitate that which is evil, but that which is good. He who does good is of God. He who does evil hasn’t seen God. "

Originally posted by truejew
We are not speaking of just a difference of words, but of blasphemers who hate Jesus Christ.

... as evidenced by the fact that they disagree with Gary Reckart.

The slide down the slippery slope into the abyss of hell began right in the UPC church.

While we do not expect David K. Bernard to become a Jesus name blasphemer as these have developed into, we do hold him accountable for the destruction of these souls. He wrote those lies that the name of God was Yahweh. He planted the seed. He is the one who is responsible for them believing this cult mess.

There are many thousands of others who will be turned into blasphemers just like these in Indonesia.

I am warning every one of you: do not believe the lies of David K. Bernard. The name of God never was or ever will be Yahweh. The name of God is Jesus and it has always been Jesus. Do not be deceived by the UPC, by David K. Bernard, or by any other means. (Source)

Any time you call God something other than Jesus, no matter what your intentions, it's apparently blasphemy and evidence that you hate Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'm sorry, but I've looked and I can find no scripture that says heretics should simply be ignored.

I think the only place where the word is used the way we understand it today, would be in 2 Peter, which is probably a later forgery anyway.
It originally meant to have your own opinion, then later became someone not "orthodox", which is also not in the Bible.

Actually, it simply means "wrong teaching". Yes, when applied to Christianity, it means non-orthodox, but it just means wrong teaching, and that is addressed in multiple places in the New Testament. However, the proscribed treatment there is to try and correct them, and if they persist, kick them out of the church, but as Reckart's cult is not a part of the church, that process is not applicable.

However, by extension (and by the tradition of Christian apologists since the First Century,) it shouldn't be ignored, even if it comes from a non-Christian source, like Reckart.

reply to post by adjensen

the proscribed treatment there is to try and correct them, and if they persist, kick them out of the church

. . and you are saying that this is in the New Testament? Hmm.

However, by extension (and by the tradition of Christian apologists since the First Century,) it shouldn't be ignored, even if it comes from a non-Christian source, like Reckart.

You mean . . by the faction that 'won'.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

the proscribed treatment there is to try and correct them, and if they persist, kick them out of the church

. . and you are saying that this is in the New Testament? Hmm.

Sure.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17 NIV)

Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. (Timothy 1:18-20 NIV)

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned. (Titus 3:10-11 NIV)

reply to post by adjensen

Sure.

I have never seen that passage in Matthew to be understood as meaning heresy is somehow doing wrong to another person.
"Handing over to Satan" doesn't really bring anything in particular to mind with me.
The other thing is by the same writer who said that all Cretans are lazy and liars.

I may have gotten the book wrong earlier but the part about being by a pseudonymous writer, I got right, meaning, 1 Timothy and Titus being books written after Paul had died, and so are later forgeries and not to be taken as authoritative since the authority of the New Testament comes from the idea that it is of Apostolic origin.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

Sure.

I have never seen that passage in Matthew to be understood as meaning heresy is somehow doing wrong to another person.

It doesn't say that the person sinned against you, just that they sinned, and heresy would be a sin.

"Handing over to Satan" doesn't really bring anything in particular to mind with me.

Pretty clearly indicates that Paul kicked them out of the church.

The other thing is by the same writer who said that all Cretans are lazy and liars.

I don't know that you throw out an entire text because of one bit that you disagree with.

I may have gotten the book wrong earlier but the part about being by a pseudonymous writer, I got right, meaning, 1 Timothy and Titus being books written after Paul had died, and so are later forgeries and not to be taken as authoritative since the authority of the New Testament comes from the idea that it is of Apostolic origin.

There are questions about 1 & 2 Peter, as well as the pastoral letters, but they were accepted by those closest to their writing, the Church Fathers, and modern textual criticism has reasonable answers (Peter's letters being dictated, and the differences due to different scribes; Paul's letters being written to personal friends, with different advice than those written to churches.)

Regardless, the canon is a demonstration of what the early church thought and taught.

reply to post by adjensen

Have we got the whole gang here yet from Truejew's thread?

Since this is a thread about Catholic, Protestant, or Cult(?) then maybe it is somewhat appropriate to bring up certain personalities.

even if it comes from a non-Christian source, like Reckart

I am assuming that your criterion for calling him non-Christian is due to his non-conformity to the Athanasian Creed, which includes
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly
....
This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

When I was a Lutheran (of a sect no longer in existence), we recited the creed out of the Missouri Synod hymnal every Trinity Sunday. I felt very uneasy with those parts of the creed which I quoted.

I am also uneasy that the Church has assumed that a collection of manifestations calling themselves Yahweh is somehow the one person of the Father. As my anecdote above was pointing out, conformity to Trinitarian belief did not prevent certain people from worshipping a Talmudic entity.

I, for 1, do not consider these individuals to be joined with Christ, even though they claim to be.

I'm a bit confused reading all this! I thought there was only 1 God as in God the father why has Jesus been up graded to a God i thought he was a son? If he's a god that means there's 2 this is all brain boggling.

Maybe i didn't listen to well in church for 18 years!!

Originally posted by pthena

even if it comes from a non-Christian source, like Reckart

I am assuming that your criterion for calling him non-Christian is due to his non-conformity to the Athanasian Creed

No, he's not a Christian because his bunch rejects the Nicene Creed, specifically the Trinitarian parts. I don't know about the Athanasian Creed, but I doubt they're in favour of that, either.

In addition, they teach salvation by works (you cannot be saved unless you are baptized, in the name of Jesus only, by an Apostolic Oneness pastor, and you must show evidence of being saved by speaking in tongues,) modify or reject scripture that they disagree with, and believe that the real name of God is the English word pronounced "gee-zus", and if you don't say it "close enough" to that, God won't know that you are speaking to him.

An absolutely absurd theology, and non-Christian at its roots.

As my anecdote above was pointing out, conformity to Trinitarian belief did not prevent certain people from worshipping a Talmudic entity.

I, for 1, do not consider these individuals to be joined with Christ, even though they claim to be.

No, I don't believe that simply being a Trinitarian, or saying the creed, makes you a Christian, but rejecting it makes you something else. Personally, I don't think that there is anything wrong with being "something else", but I do think it improper to claim to be a Christian while rejecting the creed that defines Christian beliefs.

Originally posted by ballymoney50
I'm a bit confused reading all this! I thought there was only 1 God as in God the father why has Jesus been up graded to a God i thought he was a son? If he's a god that means there's 2 this is all brain boggling.

Maybe i didn't listen to well in church for 18 years!!

If Jesus wasn't God, then the Doctrine of Atonement is invalidated, and he died for nothing. In addition, if Jesus wasn't God, then all Christians, all the way back to his initial followers, the Apostles, are in violation of the "Thou shalt have no other God before me" commandment, and we can be pretty sure that his Apostles, being orthodox Jews, would not violate that.

As for reconciling the Doctrine of the Trinity (there is only one God, in three persons), here is an article that may help: What is the doctrine of the Trinity?

reply to post by ballymoney50

I'm a bit confused reading all this!

Threads themselves are confusing. Add in a bunch of people with different creeds and it's a real mess.

Ultimately, beyond our understanding, God is One, or maybe two, and perhaps even three.

Christians believe that Jesus, as the Son, showed what can be understood about the Father.

Theologians think that they can explain more than what was revealed. And then they argue. I'm sorry.

reply to post by ballymoney50


From what i've found most christians don't understand the trinity in any case

I wouldn't worry too much about it...

Though personally i would listen to what Jesus said as opposed to what the "early church Fathers" decided to accept... That being the idea that there is one true God...

Not three entities that equal one God...

Though apparently you can't be Christian without accepting the trinity... Which is just a crock anyways

reply to post by adjensen

No, I don't believe that simply being a Trinitarian, or saying the creed, makes you a Christian, but rejecting it makes you something else. Personally, I don't think that there is anything wrong with being "something else", but I do think it improper to claim to be a Christian while rejecting the creed that defines Christian beliefs.

You, at least, understand some of the reasons why I'm not a Christian, or at least don't claim to be.

Definitions are very important. If I am correct, the reason for the Nicene creed was to serve as the definition of Christianity for the purpose of recognition by the Roman Empire, as a distinct and defined religion.

Some people don't care what the empire recognizes. My definition would have to be split.
1) Those who believe Jesus fulfilled the role of son of David Messiah, according to the prophecies. Thus "Jesus is Messiah.
or
2) Christness is a transcendent role or state which can be filled regardless of any royal line or prophecy. Thus "Jesus is Christ"

I don't think that anyone who subscribes to 1) should be calling someone else who subscribes to 1) not a Christian. But that's just my definition and not any major church's definition, or what the empire has accepted as a definition.

If, on the other hand, the church were to abandon 1) in favor of 2), then I would gladly call myself a Christian. I doubt that will happen. And if I were calling myself a Christian, that would just be spreading confusion.

As for the gentleman who was being discussed, the word "personality cult" comes to mind. Wait, is that two words? Personality cults do have some serious dangers apart from what is being taught.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by ballymoney50

 

Though apparently you can't be Christian without accepting the trinity... Which is just a crock anyways

I'll repeat, and clarify, I guess, my earlier statement.

One can be a follower of Christ without adhering to any creed. Like his teaching? Great. Want to live like him? Fantastic. Think he existed, but don't think he's God? No problem.

However, "Christianity" is a technical term and label, and it is applied to those who believe in what "Christianity" professes, and that would be the Creed. One cannot simply come up with a new definition of "Christianity", because it is what it has been for 1600 years.

That, in no way, should be seen as diminishing anyone, or of making their faith "second class citizens" -- I respect everyone's right to believe what they wish to believe (I just draw the line at misrepresenting what Christianity teaches, or what scripture says -- I'm an apologist, not an evangelist.)