Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by adjensen

Those are not the end-all-be-all of cult characteristics, and if you had bothered to read the list I posted, you'd hae known that. And if you read the testimonies of those who have left the Pentecostal Oneness church, there are real instances of taking people away from their family and friends (such as shunning anyone who rejects the church) and instances of physical harm.

What you are saying does not take place in true Apostolic churches.

Originally posted by adjensen

Of course they can, if they are Christian cults. "Living by the Bible" is one of the core components, in fact, because that's often the complaint against other Christian denominations.

They can claim to live by the Bible, but they don't really live by the Bible.

Originally posted by adjensen

You've made claims that say God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not merciful and is held hostage by human actions.

I did not.

Originally posted by adjensen
But you contradict it by the very core of your faith, so by your own statement, you are wrong.

I do not.

Originally posted by adjensen
Claiming that God is not omniscient, omnipotent, merciful and free from human constraints contradicts the Bible.

I do not claim those things.

Originally posted by adjensen

Claiming that Jesus did not tell the Apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" contradicts the Bible.

Not the original.

Originally posted by adjensen

Claiming that God's only name is "gee-zus" contradicts the Bible.

What other name is there by which we must be saved?

Originally posted by truejew
What you are saying does not take place in true Apostolic churches.

How many of those are there?

Originally posted by adjensen

Of course they can, if they are Christian cults. "Living by the Bible" is one of the core components, in fact, because that's often the complaint against other Christian denominations.

They can claim to live by the Bible, but they don't really live by the Bible.

Says who, you? What is your basis for saying that?

You've made claims that say God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not merciful and is held hostage by human actions.

I did not.

So, are you retracting your earlier statement that if you call on God, but do not use the name "gee-zus", pronounced correctly, he will not know that you are calling on him? If you still believe that, you reject God's omniscience.

Are you also rejecting your earlier statement that a person who is baptized in any manner other than your "Jesus only" method cannot be saved? If you still believe that, you reject God's omnipotence and mercy.

And are you rejecting your earlier statement that a person must be baptized by an Apostolic Oneness pastor who is not a homosexual in order to be saved? If you still believe that, you are saying that God is held hostage by the actions of human beings.

Originally posted by adjensen

Says who, you? What is your basis for saying that?

The Bible and Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by adjensen

So, are you retracting your earlier statement that if you call on God, but do not use the name "gee-zus", pronounced correctly, he will not know that you are calling on him? If you still believe that, you reject God's omniscience.

I believe that Jesus is His name. I believe as the Bible says that we should call upon His name. I do not and never have rejected God's omniscience.

Originally posted by adjensen

Are you also rejecting your earlier statement that a person who is baptized in any manner other than your "Jesus only" method cannot be saved? If you still believe that, you reject God's omnipotence and mercy.

I believe that the only way of baptism is how the apostles baptized. I do not reject God's omnipotence and mercy.

Originally posted by adjensen

And are you rejecting your earlier statement that a person must be baptized by an Apostolic Oneness pastor who is not a homosexual in order to be saved? If you still believe that, you are saying that God is held hostage by the actions of human beings.

I believe that a person must be baptized by a minister as they were in the Bible.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Says who, you? What is your basis for saying that?

The Bible and Holy Spirit.

No, what is your basis for knowing that some other group isn't living by the Bible? Are you a specialist in the lifestyles of different cults? Or are you just assuming that everyone else in the world, about from your little group, is not living Biblically?

So, are you retracting your earlier statement that if you call on God, but do not use the name "gee-zus", pronounced correctly, he will not know that you are calling on him? If you still believe that, you reject God's omniscience.

I believe that Jesus is His name. I believe as the Bible says that we should call upon His name. I do not and never have rejected God's omniscience.

You can't have it both ways -- you previously said that if you don't call him "gee-zus", he will not know that you are calling on him. Is that still your belief? If it is, then you reject God's omniscience, because you're saying that he doesn't know something (the fact that you're calling on him.)

I believe that the only way of baptism is how the apostles baptized. I do not reject God's omnipotence and mercy.

Yes, you do, because you are saying that he cannot and/or will not save anyone who wasn't baptized by your formula.

Cannot = God is not omnipotent
Will Not = God is not merciful

Your teaching contradicts the Bible, so it is therefore wrong, by your own definition.

Originally posted by adjensen

No, what is your basis for knowing that some other group isn't living by the Bible?

The Bible and Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by adjensen

You can't have it both ways -- you previously said that if you don't call him "gee-zus", he will not know that you are calling on him. Is that still your belief? If it is, then you reject God's omniscience, because you're saying that he doesn't know something (the fact that you're calling on him.)

The Bible says to call on His name and God has omniscience.

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, you do, because you are saying that he cannot and/or will not save anyone who wasn't baptized by your formula.

Cannot = God is not omnipotent
Will Not = God is not merciful

Your teaching contradicts the Bible, so it is therefore wrong, by your own definition.

It is also the Bible, Jesus, and the apostles that says you must be born again. Yet they also teach God is omnipotent and merciful.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

No, what is your basis for knowing that some other group isn't living by the Bible?

The Bible and Holy Spirit.

They make you omniscient? You know exactly how every other person in the world is living, in every little detail?

Wow.

You can't have it both ways -- you previously said that if you don't call him "gee-zus", he will not know that you are calling on him. Is that still your belief? If it is, then you reject God's omniscience, because you're saying that he doesn't know something (the fact that you're calling on him.)

The Bible says to call on His name and God has omniscience.

Except that you're claiming a paradox, which is also non-Biblical. Either God is omniscient, in which case it doesn't matter what name, if any, you use; or God is not omniscient, in which case you do have to get it right.

I understand why you never directly address that issue, because it flat out destroys your theology as being either wrong, or being unBiblical. The question that you should be asking yourself is not which of those is the answer, but why you are unwilling to even recognize the paradox. You claim that your church does not practice brainwashing, but refusing to recognize a clear paradox, an obvious conflict between your theology and the Bible that you say it is based on, is indicative of something very wrong with your thought process.

reply to post by adjensen


I am saying that calling on the name of Jesus, which is Biblical, does not contradict God's omniscience, which is also Biblical.

Acts 22:16-17 (KJV)
16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

It does not say calling on any name that you want.

Originally posted by truejew
Acts 22:16-17 (KJV)
16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

It does not say calling on any name that you want.

It also does not say that it won't work if you don't call on the name of the Lord, which is where your theology gets into trouble.

Saying that it won't work if you don't pronounce his name right, because he won't know that you're talking to him, denies God's omniscience. Saying that it won't work if you don't pronounce his name right, because he knows you're talking to him, but refuses to help because you used the wrong word denies God's mercy. Saying that it won't work if you don't pronounce his name right, because he knows you want to talk to him, he wants to help, but he can't, denies God's omnipotence.

You get backed into this corner because your theology is terrible, unBiblical, pointlessly rigid and completely illogical.

Originally posted by adjensen

It also does not say that it won't work if you don't call on the name of the Lord, which is where your theology gets into trouble.

Who else is there to call upon for salvation?

Originally posted by adjensen

Saying that it won't work if you don't pronounce his name right, because he won't know that you're talking to him, denies God's omniscience.

We do not teach His name must be pronounced right as you claim, only that you must call upon His name.

Again, we do not deny God's omnipotence.

You are never going to convince me that I am wrong as long as you remain ignorant on what we believe.

Originally posted by truejew
We do not teach His name must be pronounced right as you claim, only that you must call upon His name.

So Reckart has rejected all of his own babbling on this page? Acts 4:12 Defines One Salvation Name IT IS JESUS

Because he says, repeatedly, that you have to pronounce it right.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
We do not teach His name must be pronounced right as you claim, only that you must call upon His name.

So Reckart has rejected all of his own babbling on this page? Acts 4:12 Defines One Salvation Name IT IS JESUS

Because he says, repeatedly, that you have to pronounce it right.

I do not see what you claim on that page. In fact, I see the following...

I will say with all gravity and sincerity that no where in the Scriptures are we told that we had to speak any word or name in an exact Hebrew manner. The Apostles did not feel it a sin to translate the sacred name into Greek as Iehsous (Iesous) and I feel it no less degrading that this great name be translated into every language of the world. So, I will not condemn or betray the faith of those who say the name of Jesus Christ in Chinese, German, Spanish, Russian, etc. We will let our God be the judge.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
We do not teach His name must be pronounced right as you claim, only that you must call upon His name.

So Reckart has rejected all of his own babbling on this page? Acts 4:12 Defines One Salvation Name IT IS JESUS

Because he says, repeatedly, that you have to pronounce it right.

I do not see what you claim on that page.

But, we see the majestic hand of God when the J sound was restored via a new and different method in the King James Version with the name of Jesus correctly pronounced.

from this we get some who pronounce the sacred name as Jehsu and Jesu. Anyone who associates this sacred "wonderful" name of God (Isaiah 9:6) with the name of a pagan god or claims that it means "pig god" deserve the antichrist award of the year. The name Jesus does not mean "pig god". It is not a name for a second God of rank in the Greek pantheon of gods! It is not the name of the second person-God in a trinity. It is the ONLY NAME GIVEN UNDER HEAVEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED!

This seals the deal:

It is NOT THE SPELLING we are interested in but the pronunciation of the name which however it is spelled, is accepted by God as his sons and daughters calling upon his name.

If you pronounce it wrong, the magic doesn't work, God, who is not omniscient, does not know that you're calling on him, and you're out of luck.

In fact, I see the following...

So, I will not condemn or betray the faith of those who say the name of Jesus Christ in Chinese, German, Spanish, Russian, etc. We will let our God be the judge.

The only reason that he says that is because of the obvious idiocy of saying that only people who speak English can be saved. Saying "We will let our God be the judge" implies that we will be judged on how we pronounce his name.

Elitist, anti-Biblical rubbish.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
We do not teach His name must be pronounced right as you claim, only that you must call upon His name.

So Reckart has rejected all of his own babbling on this page? Acts 4:12 Defines One Salvation Name IT IS JESUS

Because he says, repeatedly, that you have to pronounce it right.

I do not see what you claim on that page.

But, we see the majestic hand of God when the J sound was restored via a new and different method in the King James Version with the name of Jesus correctly pronounced.

from this we get some who pronounce the sacred name as Jehsu and Jesu. Anyone who associates this sacred "wonderful" name of God (Isaiah 9:6) with the name of a pagan god or claims that it means "pig god" deserve the antichrist award of the year. The name Jesus does not mean "pig god". It is not a name for a second God of rank in the Greek pantheon of gods! It is not the name of the second person-God in a trinity. It is the ONLY NAME GIVEN UNDER HEAVEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED!

This seals the deal:

It is NOT THE SPELLING we are interested in but the pronunciation of the name which however it is spelled, is accepted by God as his sons and daughters calling upon his name.

If you pronounce it wrong, the magic doesn't work, God, who is not omniscient, does not know that you're calling on him, and you're out of luck.

In fact, I see the following...

So, I will not condemn or betray the faith of those who say the name of Jesus Christ in Chinese, German, Spanish, Russian, etc. We will let our God be the judge.

The only reason that he says that is because of the obvious idiocy of saying that only people who speak English can be saved. Saying "We will let our God be the judge" implies that we will be judged on how we pronounce his name.

Elitist, anti-Biblical rubbish.

edit on 22-4-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

I still see nothing that says mispronouncing the name equals no salvation as you claim. In fact, he leaves it up to God to be the judge.

Again, you are not going to convince me that we are wrong when you choose to be ignorant of what we really believe. I think it is time for you to move on and drop your false accusations.

reply to post by Snsoc

Dear Snsoc,

Soooo......

What does all of this have to do with my OP?

" ... What is it good for? Absolutely nothing."

I've got to admit I'm really saddened by the turn we've taken. It looks to me, an outsider, as a continuation of a long running conflict, spanning several threads, between two or more strongly motivated combatants. I don't see it coming to a conclusion which will glorify God or educate the readers

I'm also sad that we're losing the opporunity to discuss significant issues separating Catholics and Protestants.

I don't know what to do now. Try to save this thread by calling on the Mods to declare whole pages of this thread off-topic, then sending U2Us to all the previous participants saying they can come out of the shelters? Perhaps start a new thread?

You've got a great idea and project here, I'd hate to lose it. Let me know how I can help.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Who ever said a jury can remit sins??

No one here argued that they can remit sins.

They can however decide if a person who is accused of a crime did the crime or didn't do the crime.

That does not remit their sin of actually doing the crime.

What crime? And again, NO ONE here said any jury CAN remit sins, so who are you addressing that statement to??

Are you trolling again? Show one post where anyone said a jury can remit sins please.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Snsoc

 

Dear Snsoc,

Soooo......

What does all of this have to do with my OP?

" ... What is it good for? Absolutely nothing."

Well, I'm willing to drop the matter, now that he's admitted it doesn't matter what you call God, but you may forget that it arose when he said that the OP was irrelevant because neither Catholics nor Protestants are Christians, just his group.

Yes, it is a long running dispute that is not likely to be resolved, but I think that we, as Christians, are called to refute heresies and speak up against the misrepresentations of Christianity that people like this put forth.

reply to post by adjensen

Dear adjensen,

Thank you for the reminder, and the response. I had forgotten

that it arose when he said that the OP was irrelevant because neither Catholics nor Protestants are Christians, just his group.

Surely, that is such an extreme position that almost no one can take it seriously. People were being identified as Christians before 200 A.D. I, and I think almost the entire world believes, that Catholics and Protestants are Christian. (Some, like myself, aren't very good at it, but Christian all the same.) It's truejew contra mundum

And I agree that heresies must be refuted, but there are heretics who never repent or alter their beliefs. I don't intend insult to truejew, but might this be a "Pearls before swine" moment? For some reason the word "recalcitrant" comes to mind.

As I offered to Sncos (if I've got it right), how can I be of help from here on in?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Who ever said a jury can remit sins??

No one here argued that they can remit sins.

They can however decide if a person who is accused of a crime did the crime or didn't do the crime.

That does not remit their sin of actually doing the crime.

What crime? And again, NO ONE here said any jury CAN remit sins, so who are you addressing that statement to??

Are you trolling again? Show one post where anyone said a jury can remit sins please.

You said that if a jury acquits someone, they are innocent whether or not they actually did the crime.

And I really think it is time to move on.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Snsoc

 

Dear Snsoc,

Soooo......

What does all of this have to do with my OP?

" ... What is it good for? Absolutely nothing."

Well, I'm willing to drop the matter, now that he's admitted it doesn't matter what you call God, but you may forget that it arose when he said that the OP was irrelevant because neither Catholics nor Protestants are Christians, just his group.

Yes, it is a long running dispute that is not likely to be resolved, but I think that we, as Christians, are called to refute heresies and speak up against the misrepresentations of Christianity that people like this put forth.

I did not admit that. Just another case of your dishonesty.

I would like to see this thread back on track. Can you stop taking shots at me.

Btw, my first post was on infant baptism and was on topic.

Originally posted by adjensen
That's my argument against idiots who claim that baptism, in the name of Christ, is necessary for salvation.

Blasphemous, I suppose, but do they think that Christ spit on the thief to baptize him? I can't see any other solution to those who claim that baptism is necessary.

This is the post that began this all. Again, my previous post had just been on infant baptism.