Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe
the Apostles revealed more of a divine mystery after being enlightened by God the Holy Spirit.

Show us quotes from the apostles that show your claim.

Hi,

First, who is "us?"

I can look but everything was passed on orally, Jesus never wrote anything down and who did He pass His teachings on to, the Apostles not Luther or your preacher. Trust what the Apostles were given by Christ. Christians can know, you're denying, too bad. But, you can change, do not wait until God shows you personally. He is going to very soon. When the world is at its worst and Communism comes again.


God bless you,

colbe

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Is Jesus completely schizo?

You just said that Jesus and the Father are not separate and are one. Now you say that Jesus is not the Father. Can you make up your mind?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

No, he didn't say that at all. Go back and re-read the dialogue.

I know the dialogue. Unless he is agreeing with Modalism, he is saying that Jesus is separate from God. In other words, he is saying Jesus is not God.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Again, you cannot do those things while rejecting the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.

A good first step for you would be to repent and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Again, you don't know what I believe. I trust in Christ's completed work at Calvary alone, nothing else. He is the only Savior. And I have been proclaiming that Jesus is Lord for over a decade.

I just "did it" twice now. So explain how this is possible without the Holy Spirit.

edit on 4-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You reject being born again. You reject Christ.

Originally posted by colbe

I can look but everything was passed on orally

Which means you have no evidence of your claim. If it was important for us to know, it would have been written down in Scripture.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, what Trinitarianism states is that The Son of God put on flesh at the incarnation.

According to what document?
That is according to your cult's scheme.
It is not part of real trinitarianism.
There is nothing in there about anyone "putting on" flesh.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You seem to be struggling with the doctrine of the Trinity . . .

You are "struggling" coming up with an argument to support your position.
You just accept whatever your cult leader says, not bothering to look for any authority beyond that, or even for a proper explanation of it..

Originally posted by colbe
truejew We're upset with you cause you refuse to look at the facts.

POT MEET KETTLE
ATS Quick Guide to Modern False Apparitions and 'Seers'
You can't yell at people for refusing to look at the facts, when you do the exact same thing.

reply to post by truejew

He did say that since Jesus was with God He could not have been God.

This is something to do with an interpretation of the prologue of John's Gospel, where it is talking about something that the writer calls the Logos.
Automatically assuming that the Logos is Jesus, to me, is an oversimplified interpretation, and beyond that, wrong, as far as I am concerned.
Just accepting that Logos = Jesus and then using that as an axiom from which to take further steps of logic to come up with more conclusions, only results in ones which are meaningless because the first assumption has no bases in reality other than as hearsay.

reply to post by adjensen

God is in three persons. This allows for what John says -- "Jesus (the Word) was with God", and "Jesus (the Word) was God."

This is a backwards interpretive translation, and not what the verses actually say.

Such an interpretation exists, I believe, because of the grasping at anything that may reasonably be considered as supporting any of the various trinity theories.
My suggestion is to read this without those well-worn biases, to see what the author was really trying to say.
To the minds of Greek speaking people of that time, the Logos meant some sort of principle or force that caused things to come into existence. What John is saying is that "thing" was God, meaning that it was God that created everything.
So that part, "the Logos was God", explains how things happened.
As for the why the creation happened, John goes back to that same Greek word, Logos, and uses it in the sense of intention, to show that creation was not a random event, but was the result of the intention that was "with" God, for lack of a better word to describe the connection, maybe because God before the existence of a universe was not a space where intention could be said to be "inside" of Him.

reply to post by truejew

Who says the tongues has to be English. There are other languages.

That is the model presented in the stories in Acts.
You are using Acts as your authority for the legitimization of a phenomenon that you are a witness to in your cult meetings.
So how is there any similarity between the two things?
The people in the Acts stories were not saying, "wow, isn't that funny, it seems these people are speaking in some language that no one in the world can understand."

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

That is the model presented in the stories in Acts.

I did not know that they spoke English back then.

reply to post by truejew

You have really become like Adjensen in your recent posts. Insulting people and hate for God.

What? You are making this up. You were changing what I said to look like instead of me being critical of your cult's claims, that I was criticizing God. Like this, what you posted earlier.

Now you are saying repentance and praise to Jesus is "satanic" and "self-induced hysteria".

And it looks like you are cursing me here,

I would not want to be in your shoes at judgement.

Your perceived slights against you by me are only in your imagination. I was just pointing out that you seem to convert things in your mind, then post your version as if I said that.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

You have really become like Adjensen in your recent posts. Insulting people and hate for God.

What? You are making this up, where you change what I say to look like instead of me being critical of your cult's claims, that I am criticizing God. Like this, what you posted earlier.

Now you are saying repentance and praise to Jesus is "satanic" and "self-induced hysteria".

And it looks like you are cursing me here,

I would not want to be in your shoes at judgement.

Your perceived slights against you by me are only in your imagination. I was just pointing out that you seem to convert things in your mind, then post your version as if I said that.

edit on 4-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

People's lifes are changed when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. You are claiming that that is satanic. I do not think satan delivers from sin as your cult seems to think.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Not separate, they are one, Jesus said this. He is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father.

They are separate in terms of their personhood.
The orthodox Trinity doctrine says they are individual persons.
Jesus saying "the father and I are one" does not mean they are the same person, but that Jesus served as the representative of God, being in complete agreement with Him.

reply to post by truejew

I have no problems with John 1:1-2. In the beginning was the Messieh and the Messieh was with God and the Messieh was God in flesh. The distinction is not between gods, but between God and Messieh.

Except that it says none of that.
The "distinction", as I already pointed out, is between the who and the why, the creator and the creator's intention.
"Logos", the power and ability aspect of the word used in the original Greek, was God.
"Logos", the intention and planning aspect of the word used in the original Greek, was with God.

reply to post by truejew

I did not know that they spoke English back then.

It looks like you are another of the people on this forum who have as the basis for their misunderstanding of theology, the inability to understand metaphors, as a sort of mental disability due to the lack of development of, or the activation of, that part of the brain responsible for that particular skill.

reply to post by truejew

People's lifes are changed when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.

By what authority do you make that claim?
Are you basing it on the stories in Acts?
If so, how is what you are witness to similar to what is described in the stories?

You are claiming that that is satanic. I do not think satan delivers from sin as your cult seems to think.

Again, you are not getting what I am saying.
I am not claiming anything satanic. I stated that, to me, if there was some sort of "Satan" element to it, it would be in the cult leader's motivation to encourage what is only a normal human self-induced sort of seizure, by telling the experiencers that it was somehow "Holy".
I was not saying that "Satan" was making these seizures.
People cause these to happen, even if they do not consciously realize that they are doing it themselves.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I don't see that we have anything else to talk about.

reply to post by truejew

From "Manual of the Primitive Baptist Church" second edition, July 24, 1929

Baptism

"(B) Its administration must be by the proper administrator in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

That's pretty self explanatory directions right there. If people want to baptize without using his name, in this world you can do pretty much anything you want, more power to them, but as for me? If I ever have to baptize anyone i'll be doing so as Apostle Peter said in Acts 2 because that is the correct and biblical way.

People overcomplicate things that were made to be so simple children could understand them.