a former Evangelical "born again" explains why Protestantism isn't true

reply to post by adjensen


If you cannot provide evidence and cannot accept the evidence presented to you, then there is nothing I can do for you and nothing you can do for me. For me, the lack of spiritual fruit displayed by your church and yourself is strong evidence against you. Without the fruit, which you do not have, you don't have the Spirit. God has not taken His Spirit away from His true Church.

reply to post by colbe

No takers, I am sad. Darn.

Sorry. To say that one sect of Christianity isn't true is like saying Leprechauns aren't real, but Unicorns are.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

truejew,
You don't show respect for God or for humanity.

Yes I do. God can use anyone and anything He wants.

Originally posted by colbe

God always respects free will, He doesn't use anyone. Another
"used" comment is God used Mary, she is just a vessel. Imagine!!

He respects our free will, but He also uses us for His purpose. God destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD by using the enemies of God. He did not mess with their free will though because they wanted to destroy Jerusalem. God uses the Church to spread His word. He does not take away the free will of the Church because the Church wants to spread His word.

Originally posted by colbe

If you profess the faith, Roman Catholicism is wrong, you are calling Our Lord a liar.

Jesus is not a liar.

Originally posted by colbe

Naming Peter, leader
of His Church on earth, Our Lord knows the future, He said "the gates of Hell will not prevail against My Church"
(Matt 16:18).

Peter was one of the apostles, not the only apostle, nor pope. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church.

Originally posted by colbe

Read the quotes of the first Christians, men taught by the Apostles, their beliefs are Roman Catholic. Start
with a few of the earliest Church Fathers, Iraneaus, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch...

Ignatius and Polycarp were oneness. Iraneaus, while using some trinitarian thoughts, did write some things that are very oneness and against the trinity.

Originally posted by colbe

Your avatar name, you profess some Protestant heresies here but say no to Protestantism above? Are you a
Messianic Jew or do you belong to one of their denominations (break aways)? Messianic Judaism is one of the
newest Protestant sects. Messianic Judaism was started by a Baptist minister to convert Jews to...

I am in the Jewish faith of the apostles which began on the day of Pentecost as recorded in the Bible.

As I share with some stubborn people on the forum, do not take my posts apart to reply to, talk about vanity...more words.. and it takes a person's original reply out of context. Keep the post together and comment, please.

Jesus named a visible church, there is one faith, it is a historical fact. That same church gave you your Bible. The three men I listed knew the Apostle John! All of them believed in the Holy Trinity and Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist. Read their quotes, looks like you have concerning the Holy Trinity. The Church because she has the God given authority further explains the Trinity.

Maybe in other posts today, verses are given about the Blessed Trinity, in the first book of the Bible, God alludes to the Trinity in (Gen 1:26), "let US make man to OUR image and likeness".. And Our Lord's very words in (Matt 28:19). There are Christian terms all Christians profess that are NOT written in Scripture but described. It is the faith, the Church who helped to explain the Trinity as best man can understand with an exact word.

How can you follow some fella in our time who came up with a new or rehashed heresy? Run from such nonsense. It's like silly LDS and their break away, RLDS but yours is newer!

God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit want you to become Roman Catholic newjew. You can.

God bless you,





Matthew 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.

Originally posted by truejew
For me, the lack of spiritual fruit displayed by your church and yourself is strong evidence against you. Without the fruit, which you do not have, you don't have the Spirit. God has not taken His Spirit away from His true Church.

The lack of spiritual fruit? What are you, crazy? The church has gone from 11 Apostles who scattered at the crucifixion to the largest religious movement in the world. There are over 1 billion Catholics in the world today, and over a billion Protestants, how many in your cult? Twenty people? Thirty?

The "spiritual fruit" of Gary Reckart is a history of deception, running a phony college, granting himself fictitious titles (directly condemned by Christ's teaching in Matthew 23:8) and demanding "big paychecks" from those foolish enough to be taken in by him.

He is not a follower of Christ, and you would be wise to stop defending his lies.

Originally posted by colbe

Jesus named a visible church, there is one faith, it is a historical fact. That same church gave you your Bible.

And it is not the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by colbe

The three men I listed knew the Apostle John! All of them believed in the Holy Trinity and Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist.

Do you have quotes or are you assuming? Polycarp would have been considered a heretic by the Catholic Church for more than his oneness views. He was also a Quartodeciman. He kept the Passover in remembrance of Christ. The same as we do.

Originally posted by colbe

Maybe in other posts today, verses are given about the Blessed Trinity, in the first book of the Bible, God alludes to the Trinity in (Gen 1:26), "let US make man to OUR image and likeness"..

The "us" and "our" were God speaking to the angels. Notice that in the 27th verse, it was a Him/He, not a they/them who did the creating.

Originally posted by colbe

And Our Lord's very words in (Matt 28:19).

Matthew 28:18-20 is a questionable verse. Even many trinitarians agree.

Originally posted by adjensen

The lack of spiritual fruit?

Yes, your church does not show spiritual fruit. Murders and priests messing around with children are not spiritual fruit.

You also do not show spiritual fruit. Lying is not a spiritual fruit.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

The lack of spiritual fruit?

Yes, your church does not show spiritual fruit. Murders and priests messing around with children are not spiritual fruit.

That's a pretty tired complaint of yours -- painting an entire church of one billion with the acts of a few is not an honest position. Show me where the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church teaches murder and child molestation.

You also do not show spiritual fruit. Lying is not a spiritual fruit.

Show me where I've lied.

For a better description of the trinity, might I suggest this. Or this.

God bless.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

Jesus named a visible church, there is one faith, it is a historical fact. That same church gave you your Bible.

And it is not the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by colbe

The three men I listed knew the Apostle John! All of them believed in the Holy Trinity and Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist.

Do you have quotes or are you assuming? Polycarp would have been considered a heretic by the Catholic Church for more than his oneness views. He was also a Quartodeciman. He kept the Passover in remembrance of Christ. The same as we do.

Originally posted by colbe

Maybe in other posts today, verses are given about the Blessed Trinity, in the first book of the Bible, God alludes to the Trinity in (Gen 1:26), "let US make man to OUR image and likeness"..

The "us" and "our" were God speaking to the angels. Notice that in the 27th verse, it was a Him/He, not a they/them who did the creating.

Originally posted by colbe

And Our Lord's very words in (Matt 28:19).

Matthew 28:18-20 is a questionable verse. Even many trinitarians agree.

I asked and with a "please", keep my posts together. You replied the same way. Pride.

Originally posted by colbe
The three men I listed knew the Apostle John! All of them believed in the Holy Trinity and Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist.

Originally posted by truejew
Do you have quotes or are you assuming? Polycarp would have been considered a heretic by the Catholic Church for more than his oneness views. He was also a Quartodeciman. He kept the Passover in remembrance of Christ. The same as we do.

No way. Polycarp is Catholic NOT Protestant.

St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna was/is a bishop and priest. Polycarp celebrated the Eucharist in Rome.

Protestants CANNOT confect the Holy Eucharist, they reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. So...Protestants came up with professing the Eucharist is only "a remembrance." What an obvious heresy, a lie. Over and over Our Lord repeats, this is My body and blood. All Christians agree, things are made greater in the New Covenant. The sacrificed Passover lamb in the Old Covenant was consumed. The same in the New Covenant but in the New Covenant, you consume God Himself! Jesus Christ is the sacrificed New Covenant Passover Lamb.

newjew, pray about it, you can change, you can become Catholic.

Polycarp was a student of John the Apostle, he didn't have kind words for an early heretic. Both men
referred to heretics as "satan."

~ ~ ~

...Polycarp, as a holy man and bishop of Smyrna, found there was only one answer -- to be true to the life of Jesus and imitate that life. Saint Ignatius of Antioch told Polycarp "your mind is grounded in God as on an immovable rock."

When faced with heresy, he showed the "candid face" that Ignatius admired and that imitated Jesus' response to the Pharisees. Marcion, the leader of the Marcionites who followed a dualistic heresy, confronted Polycarp and demanded respect by saying, "Recognize us, Polycarp." Polycarp responded, "I recognize you, yes, I recognize the son of Satan."

On the other hand when faced with Christian disagreements he was all forgiveness and respect. One of the controversies of the time came over the celebration of Easter. The East, where Polycarp was from, celebrated the Passover as the Passion of Christ followed by a Eucharist on the following day. The West celebrated Easter on the Sunday of the week following Passover. When Polycarp went to Rome to discuss the difference with Pope Anicetus (3rd Pope), they could not agree on this issue. But they found no difference in their Christian beliefs. And Anicetus asked Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his own papal chapel.

www.catholic.org...

Originally posted by adjensen

That's a pretty tired complaint of yours -- painting an entire church of one billion with the acts of a few is not an honest position. Show me where the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church teaches murder and child molestation.

If you would see the truth, I would not need to repeat it.

It is not just a Catholic Church member here and there committing these sins. It is the ordained leadership of the Catholic Church committing them and has committed them since the beginning of your church.

Originally posted by adjensen

Show me where I've lied.

Here are some.

"You hang your salvation on one passage in one book,"

"Meanwhile, you ignore the teachings of Christ"

"The "true church" has existed since the time of Pentecost, it wasn't invented by a liar and a fraud in Florida in the 20th Century."

"A church that preaches salvation by works and works alone."

Originally posted by colbe

I asked and with a "please", keep my posts together. You replied the same way. Pride.

My answers will be the same whether I do as you asked or not. The way I do it makes it easier for me and you. There is no pride involved.

Originally posted by truejew
It is not just a Catholic Church member here and there committing these sins. It is the ordained leadership of the Catholic Church committing them and has committed them since the beginning of your church.

Show me where anything but a tiny number of priests has committed child abuse.

You're smearing the good names and natures of a billion people with your lies and exaggerations. That's not Christlike behaviour.

Originally posted by adjensen

Show me where I've lied.

Here are some.

"You hang your salvation on one passage in one book,"

That's not a lie -- you've stated that Acts 2:38 vindicates the non-Trinitarian view, and that anyone not baptized in the name of Christ, and Christ alone, is not saved.

Salvation, predicated on one passage, in one book.

"Meanwhile, you ignore the teachings of Christ"

Not a lie -- Christ taught to not take titles that aren't deserved in order to make yourself seem important, and that's exactly what "Bishop", "Cohen" and "Doctor" Gary Reckart has done, along with running a diploma mill, selling degrees to fellow frauds.

And yet you defend him, even lying about his actions. Thus, you clearly ignore the teachings of Christ.

"The "true church" has existed since the time of Pentecost, it wasn't invented by a liar and a fraud in Florida in the 20th Century."

Oh, you're saying that the "true church" WAS invented by a liar and a fraud in Florida in the 20th Century?

"A church that preaches salvation by works and works alone."

See the "Salvation, predicated on one passage, in one book" above. Baptism, and the wording associated with baptism, is a work. When your cult claims that you have to follow a specific procedure, in order to be saved, you are preaching salvation by works, and works alone.

You've yet to show that I've lied about anything -- the truth hurts, but maybe you should think about accepting it, for a change.

Originally posted by colbe

No way. Polycarp is Catholic NOT Protestant.

He was neither.

Originally posted by colbe

On the other hand when faced with Christian disagreements he was all forgiveness and respect. One of the controversies of the time came over the celebration of Easter. The East, where Polycarp was from, celebrated the Passover as the Passion of Christ followed by a Eucharist on the following day. The West celebrated Easter on the Sunday of the week following Passover. When Polycarp went to Rome to discuss the difference with Pope Anicetus (3rd Pope), they could not agree on this issue. But they found no difference in their Christian beliefs. And Anicetus asked Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his own papal chapel.

The trinity did not begin to infect the Church until around 200 AD. The Catholic Church began later. The Church at Rome during the time of Polycarp was not Catholic, it was oneness. Their difference was that they had moved into the communion anytime error and away from the tradition of the apostles.

Originally posted by truejew
The Catholic Church began later. The Church at Rome during the time of Polycarp was not Catholic, it was oneness.

"Catholic" means "universal", and the church of the Apostles, Polycarp, Origen and all the rest was the Catholic church. You might disagree with their doctrine, but that is its history, and your "oneness" foolishness doesn't change history.

The trinity did not begin to infect the Church until around 200 AD

Oh? Did Justin Martyr, who died in 165AD, have a time machine, then?

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

-- Justin Martyr, First Apology

Originally posted by adjensen

Show me where anything but a tiny number of priests has committed child abuse.

Some have that sin, others have other sins. None have the Spirit of Christ.

Originally posted by adjensen

You're smearing the good names and natures of a billion people with your lies and exaggerations. That's not Christlike behaviour

None are good without Christ.

Originally posted by adjensen

That's not a lie -- you've stated that Acts 2:38 vindicates the non-Trinitarian view, and that anyone not baptized in the name of Christ, and Christ alone, is not saved.

Yes, it is. Salvation is based on the entire Bible, not just one verse.

Originally posted by adjensen

Not a lie -- Christ taught to not take titles that aren't deserved in order to make yourself seem important, and that's exactly what "Bishop", "Cohen" and "Doctor" Gary Reckart has done, along with running a diploma mill, selling degrees to fellow frauds.

Yes, it is. If you can see the truth, it is your priests who take the titles of reverend and father. It is titles such as those that Jesus spoke against. You never provided evidence that Pastor Reckart is giving out diplomas without standards. It is the lack of that evidence that I rejected your accusations.

Originally posted by adjensen

Oh, you're saying that the "true church" WAS invented by a liar and a fraud in Florida in the 20th Century?

No, I am saying the opposite.

Originally posted by adjensen

Baptism, and the wording associated with baptism, is a work.

It is faith in being baptized that saves a person. If a person gets baptized without that faith, the baptism is invalid. We teach salvation by grace through faith, not "works alone".

It is time for you to stop spreading lies about us.

Originally posted by truejew
Yes, it is. Salvation is based on the entire Bible, not just one verse.

Do you believe that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation? Can anyone who doesn't perform that act, in the exact manner proscribed by your church, be saved?

You never provided evidence that Pastor Reckart is giving out diplomas without standards. It is the lack of that evidence that I rejected your accusations.

I've shown you numerous times that Reckart is a fraud, who is running a diploma mill, by the very definition of the term with the evidence being his own words. The fact that you remain blind to it is a testimony to the fact that you're brainwashed by your cult.

And, as usual, as it is completely offtopic in this thread, I'm not going to waste any more time on showing Reckart for the fraud that he is. Both you and he will have the opportunity to answer for that before God.

Originally posted by adjensen
Oh? Did Justin Martyr, who died in 165AD, have a time machine, then?

I meant the ministry of the Church. Justin Martyr was not an ordained minister.

Originally posted by adjensen

Do you believe that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation?

There is no salvation in any other name.

Originally posted by adjensen

Can anyone who doesn't perform that act, in the exact manner proscribed by your church, be saved?

No one can be saved without faith.

Originally posted by adjensen

I've shown you numerous times that Reckart is a fraud, who is running a diploma mill, by the very definition of the term with the evidence being his own words. The fact that you remain blind to it is a testimony to the fact that you're brainwashed by your cult.

I asked you to provide the evidence the he was giving diplomas without standards. Not only did you not provide that evidence, but you provided evidence that he was using standards.

Originally posted by adjensen

And, as usual, as it is completely offtopic in this thread,

It has been off topic in every thread that you bring it up in.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
Oh? Did Justin Martyr, who died in 165AD, have a time machine, then?

I meant the ministry of the Church. Justin Martyr was not an ordained minister.

Boy, you've a sniveling little technicality for everything, don't you?

How about Polycarp?

O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever

Ignatius?

We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body

Irenaeus?

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all

They all died before 200AD -- time machines for them, too?

While you're at it, you never replied to my earlier questions -- at Jesus' baptism, the Transfiguration and the Crucifixion, it's obvious that "God the Father" and "Jesus" are two different entities. What's your explanation for that? Who was Jesus praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane? Himself? Did he ask himself to take the cup away from himself, deny himself, and bow to his own will?