Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
So now you're equating disagreeing with you with disagreeing with God?

When I am teaching what the Bible teaches.

No, what you teach is what you think the Bible teaches, despite evidence that it does not. The Bible does not teach magic words that control God, that Jesus' Hebrew name was "gee-zus", or that speaking in gibberish is a sign of anything other than susceptibility to peer pressure and/or mind control.

I would not exactly call one situation to be a "long family history".

The only three churches that you've stated your family have been a part of are Jim Jones, an obvious cult, the UPCI, generally held to be a cult, and Gary Reckart's own little fiefdom, which even members of the UPCI decry as a cult.

Cultists like the security of being tightly controlled and being told what is right, rather than having to figure it out for themselves. I'm sure that there is some psychological study that explains it, but I suppose that part of it would be having been raised under such circumstances makes not being in a cult rather uncomfortable.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Where are they in error in their statements on the Trinity, or their Christology that I posted from Adventist.org?

What they put out for public consumption, like the web site that you copied from, is not going to have any obviously un-orthodox looking stuff in it.
So the answer to your question is: Nowhere.

edit on 5-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

So I'm involved in a cult when I say it, but when your denomination posts the same thing they are in error "nowhere"?

That's not very objective.

reply to post by truejew

Just because I did not give answers that you like, does not mean that I did not answer your questions. As I said each time, you do not have/do those things.

And now you're lying.

I have stated countless times that Jesus is Lord. And have stated countless times that in His completed work at Calvary is where my trust is. And you're not a prophet, you have no idea if I am convicted when I sin or am not. To which I would argue if would be impossible to seek forgiveness without conviction.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Nope. To be "one" with something means "to be similar or in sync". And I know I have said this an absurd amount of times, but not multiple gods, but one God who exists in three personhoods. You're purposely straw manning my stated beliefs.

edit on 5-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You are the one saying that Father and Son are only one as a husband and wife are one. Husband and wife are two separate beings.

No, if you could actually read, I mentioned that the Bible also says that Adam and Eve became "one" flesh to negate your previous claim that one means "same". I never equated the relationship between the Father and the Son to a relationship between a husband and wife.

One doesn't mean "same", it means "similar or in sync".

Originally posted by adjensen

No, what you teach is what you think the Bible teaches, despite evidence that it does not.

The evidence is that Acts 2:38 is in the Bible.

Originally posted by adjensen

The Bible does not teach magic words that control God,

I do not teach that.

Originally posted by adjensen

that Jesus' Hebrew name was "gee-zus",

His name in Paleo-Hebrew/Phoenecian would have been Jeshas.

Originally posted by adjensen

or that speaking in gibberish is a sign of anything other than susceptibility to peer pressure and/or mind control.

Again, we do not speak gibberish.

Originally posted by adjensen

The only three churches that you've stated your family have been a part of are Jim Jones, an obvious cult, the UPCI, generally held to be a cult, and Gary Reckart's own little fiefdom, which even members of the UPCI decry as a cult.

Our "long family history" would be Methodist and Quaker.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
The Bible does not teach magic words that control God,

I do not teach that.

Yes, you do. You complain when it is pointed out, but you still have never retracted your claim that God cannot save you unless you use special words during baptism, and you are baptized by a "special" person and you prove the veracity of those two things by uttering gibberish.

His name in Paleo-Hebrew/Phoenecian would have been Jeshas.

There is no evidence for this, and sufficient evidence that his name was Yeshua to outright reject your claim.

If you have evidence from a credible source (and Gary Reckart, who fabricates evidence, is not a credible source,) you have never shown it, leading to the obvious conclusion that it doesn't exist.

Again, we do not speak gibberish.

Linguists have demonstrated that Glossolalia is gibberish, the product of imagination and peer pressure.

Our "long family history" would be Methodist and Quaker.

So, it's just your generation, and the previous two or three, who have an attachment to cults. Oddly coincidental to the growth of cults during those three generations.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

And now you're lying.

That is not true.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I have stated countless times that Jesus is Lord.

Actions speak louder than words. You defend sins. You refuse to baptized into Christ. You refuse to be baptized by His Spirit. You oppose His servants.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Nope. To be "one" with something means "to be similar or in sync". And I know I have said this an absurd amount of times, but not multiple gods, but one God who exists in three personhoods. You're purposely straw manning my stated beliefs.

edit on 5-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You are the one saying that Father and Son are only one as a husband and wife are one. Husband and wife are two separate beings.

No, if you could actually read, I mentioned that the Bible also says that Adam and Eve became "one" flesh to negate your previous claim that one means "same". I never equated the relationship between the Father and the Son to a relationship between a husband and wife.

One doesn't mean "same", it means "similar or in sync".

Then you are teaching separate gods.

reply to post by truejew


Then you are lying. I've corrected you dozens of times that my theology is one God who exists in three persohoods.

You're bearing false witness of what I have said numerous times. Not only is that a straw man fallacy, but it's also a lie to claim someone said something they never said.

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, you do.

My teaching is that baptism must be in the name of Jesus Christ. This is in opposition to your churches teaching that baptism must be in the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and that the word baptism must be spoken. Our baptism is no more witchcraft than what your church teaches

Originally posted by adjensen

and you prove the veracity of those two things by uttering gibberish.

We speak in other tongues, not "gibberish".

Originally posted by adjensen

There is no evidence for this, and sufficient evidence that his name was Yeshua to outright reject your claim.

The evidence is in the meanings of the names. Jeshas, short for Jehosheas, means God saves. Yeshua means God calls. Scripture tells us that God's name means God saves, not God calls.

Originally posted by adjensen

If you have evidence from a credible source (and Gary Reckart, who fabricates evidence, is not a credible source,) you have never shown it, leading to the obvious conclusion that it doesn't exist.

I have not yet seen this evidence of fabrication that you accuse.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Then you are lying. I've corrected you dozens of times that my theology is one God who exists in three persohoods.

You're bearing false witness of what I have said numerous times. Not only is that a straw man fallacy, but it's also a lie to claim someone said something they never said.

When you separate the Father from the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Son and have them speak to each other, it is impossible to not be polytheism.

reply to post by truejew

Actions speak louder than words. You defend sins. You refuse to baptized into Christ. You refuse to be baptized by His Spirit. You oppose His servants.

That's just a cliche, not a basis for systematic theology. What is directly stated in scripture is that "no man" can say that Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit. You are teaching that that verse is incorrect, that people without the Holy Spirit can in fact say that Jesus is Lord.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Then you are lying. I've corrected you dozens of times that my theology is one God who exists in three persohoods.

You're bearing false witness of what I have said numerous times. Not only is that a straw man fallacy, but it's also a lie to claim someone said something they never said.

When you separate the Father from the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Son, it is impossible to not be polytheism.

If they are not separate personhoods of the One God that makes Jesus a complete schizo because He speaks of them both in the third person. And I don't think Jesus had a mental disorder.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

If you have evidence from a credible source (and Gary Reckart, who fabricates evidence, is not a credible source,) you have never shown it, leading to the obvious conclusion that it doesn't exist.

I have not yet seen this evidence of fabrication that you accuse.

Here ya go, one instance of it:

Reckart's photoshopped "Evolution of the Alphabet" diagram:


(Larger)

The original, produced by an actual academic:


(Source)

And that's not simply fabricating evidence, it's also plagiarism and misrepresenting the work and findings of someone else.

Lying, pure and simple... what "fruits of the spirit" does Gary Reckart demonstrate there?

reply to post by adjensen


He'll defend Reckhart and claim the professional is wrong.

Bet you two jelly doughnuts and a can of Coke.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So I'm involved in a cult when I say it, but when your denomination posts the same thing they are in error "nowhere"?

No, you aren't saying the same thing.
Notice in the part that you posted
www.abovetopsecret.com...
from the Adventist site

a unity of three co-eternal Persons.

which means you don't have one person, "God", who changes from the Father to the Son (what your cult believes).

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And have stated countless times that in His completed work at Calvary is where my trust is.

OK, so this, in the canonical New Testament means nothing, then?

. . . for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What is directly stated in scripture is that "no man" can say that Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit. You are teaching that that verse is incorrect, that people without the Holy Spirit can in fact say that Jesus is Lord.

What you are "directly" quoting is 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul is comparing belief in pagan idols with belief in Jesus.
Where the first is the result of being led astray, the second is the result of God's leading.
Everyone has that, being led, as a gift, which we call grace.
For eternal life, you need more than just an influence towards Jesus, but a relationship where you receive an infilling of the spirit from God through Christ.

reply to post by jmdewey60

which means you don't have one person, "God", who changes from the Father to the Son (what your cult believes).

No, that would be basically a Christology that Truejew is espousing. That in one mode or circumstance God is the Father, then on another mode or circumstance He appears as Jesus.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And have stated countless times that in His completed work at Calvary is where my trust is.

OK, so this, in the canonical New Testament means nothing, then?

. . . for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

edit on 5-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I think redeemed believers should produce good works/fruit. But I certainly don't put my trust in my good works.