Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

So you think that Paul was alone in preaching remission of sins in the name of Christ?

No, I think Paul was alone in believing that some people needed to be re-baptized. There is no indication that anyone else thought that, did that, or had it done to them.

I think all of the apostles taught remission of sins in His name as commanded by Christ.

When did Christ command that, in those words? I was under the impression that he said it was his blood that did that.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28 KJV)

All apostles would have been together on this.

Pure supposition on your part.

I repeat -- there is zero evidence that anyone other than Paul re-baptized, taught that John's baptism for remission of sins was invalid, or that they themselves were re-baptized. We know that Paul and the Apostles differed on matters related to Jewish rites, so one cannot come to the conclusion that "All apostles would have been together on this" simply because one would like them to be.

reply to post by adjensen


Correct, it's by and through His blood that we have remission of sins. Paul echoes this in Romans 3:25.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

When did Christ command that, in those words? I was under the impression that he said it was his blood that did that.

Luke 24:46-49 (KJV)
46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48And ye are witnesses of these things.

Originally posted by adjensen

Pure supposition on your part.

All apostles would have preached remission of sins in His name as commanded and would not have denied baptism to any.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Correct, it's by and through His blood that we have remission of sins. Paul echoes this in Romans 3:25.

And when is it that the blood remits sins... It is during baptism in His name. This is why baptism is for the remission of sins.

reply to post by truejew


There's more than one way to understand "for" in English. The Greek of that text indicates it's a for that means "because of" not "in order to achieve". An example would be if I said :

"Tommy went to jail for stealing a car."

It was because of Tommy's car theft that he went to jail, not that he went to jail so he could steal a car. English is a very lazy language whereas Greek is extremely rigid and precise.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

When did Christ command that, in those words? I was under the impression that he said it was his blood that did that.

Luke 24:46-49 (KJV)
46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48And ye are witnesses of these things.

Um...

That says "preached in his name", not "baptized in his name". Obviously not the same thing.

It seems that, as is the case with the whole "baptized in the name of gee-zus" thing, you take the words of the Apostles, twist them to your favour, ignore what Jesus said, as well as anything that the Apostles said which conflicts with it, and out pops your theology.

Apart from thinking yourselves clever and "better" than Christians who don't go through those gyrations, what do you think distorting the Bible like that benefits you? I've seen Reckart and his cronies say openly that they edit the Bible as they see fit, "to take out the lies" -- are you in agreement with that approach?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

There's more than one way to understand "for" in English. The Greek of that text indicates it's a for that means "because of" not "in order to achieve". An example would be if I said :

"Tommy went to jail for stealing a car."

It was because of Tommy's car theft that he went to jail, not that he went to jail so he could steal a car. English is a very lazy language whereas Greek is extremely rigid and precise.

That is incorrect. It can mean "in order to receive" also. If in the case of baptism, it meant "because of" as you claim, 1 Peter 3:21 would not make sense.

1 Peter 3:21-22 (KJV)
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

That says "preached in his name", not "baptized in his name". Obviously not the same thing.

Do you really think they would have preached it and then denied it to their listeners?

Originally posted by adjensen

It seems that, as is the case with the whole "baptized in the name of gee-zus" thing,

Baptism in Jesus name is Biblical. Even trinitarian scholars agree.

Originally posted by adjensen

you take the words of the Apostles, twist them to your favour, ignore what Jesus said, as well as anything that the Apostles said which conflicts with it, and out pops your theology.

That is not true.

Originally posted by adjensen

Apart from thinking yourselves clever and "better" than Christians who don't go through those gyrations, what do you think distorting the Bible like that benefits you?

Again, not true.

Originally posted by adjensen

I've seen Reckart and his cronies say openly that they edit the Bible as they see fit, "to take out the lies" -- are you in agreement with that approach?

It is spiritually unhealthy to be so obsessed with a man as you are.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

That says "preached in his name", not "baptized in his name". Obviously not the same thing.

Do you really think they would have preached it and then denied it to their listeners?

You don't seem to understand.

Jesus never said anything about baptizing in his name for the remission of sins. He said that his actions, not yours, were done for the remission of sin. You elevate the Apostles above Christ and you put what you claim to be their words (without evidence) into his mouth.

I've seen Reckart and his cronies say openly that they edit the Bible as they see fit, "to take out the lies" -- are you in agreement with that approach?

It is spiritually unhealthy to be so obsessed with a man as you are.

That doesn't answer the question, and I'd say that it's far more "spiritually unhealthy" to be blindly following someone who openly admits that he edits the Bible to take out the parts he disagrees with.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

There's more than one way to understand "for" in English. The Greek of that text indicates it's a for that means "because of" not "in order to achieve". An example would be if I said :

"Tommy went to jail for stealing a car."

It was because of Tommy's car theft that he went to jail, not that he went to jail so he could steal a car. English is a very lazy language whereas Greek is extremely rigid and precise.

That is incorrect. It can mean "in order to receive" also. If in the case of baptism, it meant "because of" as you claim, 1 Peter 3:21 would not make sense.

1 Peter 3:21-22 (KJV)
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument that you are correct, that a person isn't saved when they trust in Christ and seek forgiveness for their sins because of His sacrifice on the cross, but only after that and water baptism is their sins truly forgiven, then take a wild guess at this:

Q: How many tens or hundreds of thousands of people since 32 AD died and went to Hell because they had this misfortune of accepting Christ by faith in the fall or winter and died by either sword or natural causes before the nearest body of water thawed sufficiently enough for them to be water baptized?

50,000?
100,000?
500,000?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You forget that he's claimed that anyone in those circumstances is "kept alive" by God until they can be dunked. See my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com... in which I speculate that he's discovered the key to immortality, lol.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


By the way, I came across something the other day as regards the "Jesus only" bunch's claim that Acts 2:38 denies the Trinity, something to the effect that the actual Greek words used there (as opposed to the English translation) are in the mode of "baptize by the authority of Jesus", as opposed to "baptize using the name Jesus". Of course, you'll never convince some people otherwise, but you're the ATS expert in Biblical languages, have you any insights into that?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Jesus never said anything about baptizing in his name for the remission of sins.

The apostles understood that when Jesus said remission of sins in His name, He was speaking of baptism for the remission of sins in His name.

Originally posted by adjensen

He said that his actions, not yours, were done for the remission of sin.

Salvation is by grace through faith. Faith and action cannot be separated.

Originally posted by adjensen

You elevate the Apostles above Christ and you put what you claim to be their words (without evidence) into his mouth.

Incorrect. The apostles teach what Christ taught them.

And... I do not blindly follow any single man. I follow Christ and His apostles and prophets.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

There's more than one way to understand "for" in English. The Greek of that text indicates it's a for that means "because of" not "in order to achieve". An example would be if I said :

"Tommy went to jail for stealing a car."

It was because of Tommy's car theft that he went to jail, not that he went to jail so he could steal a car. English is a very lazy language whereas Greek is extremely rigid and precise.

That is incorrect. It can mean "in order to receive" also. If in the case of baptism, it meant "because of" as you claim, 1 Peter 3:21 would not make sense.

1 Peter 3:21-22 (KJV)
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument that you are correct, that a person isn't saved when they trust in Christ and seek forgiveness for their sins because of His sacrifice on the cross, but only after that and water baptism is their sins truly forgiven, then take a wild guess at this:

Q: How many tens or hundreds of thousands of people since 32 AD died and went to Hell because they had this misfortune of accepting Christ by faith in the fall or winter and died by either sword or natural causes before the nearest body of water thawed sufficiently enough for them to be water baptized?

50,000?
100,000?
500,000?

Is God not powerful enough to provide water when needed?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Jesus never said anything about baptizing in his name for the remission of sins.

The apostles understood that when Jesus said remission of sins in His name, He was speaking of baptism for the remission of sins in His name.

There is no basis for that -- like Reckart, you are editing the Bible to reflect what you want it to say.

Jesus said nothing about baptizing for the remission of sins in his name, and you have no way of knowing what the Apostles "understood" or why.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You forget that he's claimed that anyone in those circumstances is "kept alive" by God until they can be dunked. See my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com... in which I speculate that he's discovered the key to immortality, lol.

Stop changing the meaning of my words.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Jesus never said anything about baptizing in his name for the remission of sins.

The apostles understood that when Jesus said remission of sins in His name, He was speaking of baptism for the remission of sins in His name.

There is no basis for that -- like Reckart, you are editing the Bible to reflect what you want it to say.

Jesus said nothing about baptizing for the remission of sins in his name, and you have no way of knowing what the Apostles "understood" or why.

Incorrect. The apostles responded by baptizing in His name as commanded.

reply to post by truejew


You didn't say this?

Doesn't God have the power to prevent a heart attack at least until the person has had opportunity to be baptized?

Here?

Obviously, my response to that was tongue in cheek, but point taken -- you continue to promote salvation by works, to the extent that God must prevent heart attacks and provide free flowing water, in order to allow someone to be saved by baptism.

Originally posted by truejew

Jesus said nothing about baptizing for the remission of sins in his name, and you have no way of knowing what the Apostles "understood" or why.

Incorrect. The apostles responded by baptizing in His name as commanded.

Where does Jesus command that people be baptized in his name? Chapter and verse, not "implied", not "understood". Where is it commanded?

Something as key as this cannot be some obscure reference that only some bright boy in the 20th Century could figure out -- it would be spelled out clearly, in a manner that is not open to misunderstanding.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

you continue to promote salvation by works,

Incorrect. I teach salvation by grace through true faith.

Acts 2:37-40 (KJV)
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.


Those with faith repented and got baptized.... Those without faith did not.


Whether you realize it or not, you are teaching salvation by grace through no faith.