Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by truejew

 

Do the research. It is used in Jewish and non Jewish witchcraft. If you go back and read the entire thread, you would see that my first post was on topic. It was the attacks of Adjensen that took it off topic.

I have tried to help get it back on topic a couple of times, but have long given up.

I dont have to do the research to prove your theory, YOU DO, you make a statement, you BACK IT UP WITH REFERENCES, such as I did

Homer, you are dealing with a brainwashed member of a pseudo-Christian cult. Normal expectations of discourse do not apply here.

He never backs up anything with references, usually because he doesn't have any. If you press him hard enough on most issues, he'll spout nonsense and eventually just ignore the question. Everything that he blathers on about (his "on topic post" was saying that neither Catholics nor Protestants are Christians, because only members of his little cult are) comes from the mouth of the cult leader, Gary Reckart, whom I, and others, have documented as both stealing and altering actual academics' work, and simply making things up and presenting them as fact because they support his conclusions.

Actually, my first post was on infant baptism, which was on topic.

truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by truejew

 

Do the research. It is used in Jewish and non Jewish witchcraft. If you go back and read the entire thread, you would see that my first post was on topic. It was the attacks of Adjensen that took it off topic.

I have tried to help get it back on topic a couple of times, but have long given up.

I dont have to do the research to prove your theory, YOU DO, you make a statement, you BACK IT UP WITH REFERENCES, such as I did

Homer, you are dealing with a brainwashed member of a pseudo-Christian cult. Normal expectations of discourse do not apply here.

He never backs up anything with references, usually because he doesn't have any. If you press him hard enough on most issues, he'll spout nonsense and eventually just ignore the question. Everything that he blathers on about (his "on topic post" was saying that neither Catholics nor Protestants are Christians, because only members of his little cult are) comes from the mouth of the cult leader, Gary Reckart, whom I, and others, have documented as both stealing and altering actual academics' work, and simply making things up and presenting them as fact because they support his conclusions.

Actually, my first post was on infant baptism, which was on topic.

Infant baptism is not a Catholic versus Protestant debate, as most Protestants baptize infants, as well.

truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Nope, the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. Which was you.

The burden of proof is his. He is the one making the claim that goes against the evidence.

Your claim is that YHWH was solely used by Jewish witches, for which you have provided zero evidence. A statement against an non-evidenced claim does not require anything, apart from "oh yeah, prove it!" which is what Homer asked you to do.

Originally posted by adjensen

"Jesous" is not a Greek word.

"Iesous", pronounced "ee-ay-soo", is the Greek transliteration of Yeshua, and everyone but the nitwits in your cult believes that.

"Iesous" is pronounced with the "j" sound. Yeshua has nothing to do with Jesus, Jeshas does. See strong's H3468.

Originally posted by adjensen

truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by truejew

 

Do the research. It is used in Jewish and non Jewish witchcraft. If you go back and read the entire thread, you would see that my first post was on topic. It was the attacks of Adjensen that took it off topic.

I have tried to help get it back on topic a couple of times, but have long given up.

I dont have to do the research to prove your theory, YOU DO, you make a statement, you BACK IT UP WITH REFERENCES, such as I did

Homer, you are dealing with a brainwashed member of a pseudo-Christian cult. Normal expectations of discourse do not apply here.

He never backs up anything with references, usually because he doesn't have any. If you press him hard enough on most issues, he'll spout nonsense and eventually just ignore the question. Everything that he blathers on about (his "on topic post" was saying that neither Catholics nor Protestants are Christians, because only members of his little cult are) comes from the mouth of the cult leader, Gary Reckart, whom I, and others, have documented as both stealing and altering actual academics' work, and simply making things up and presenting them as fact because they support his conclusions.

Actually, my first post was on infant baptism, which was on topic.

Infant baptism is not a Catholic versus Protestant debate, as most Protestants baptize infants, as well.

That was what was being discussed in the thread when I joined in.

Originally posted by adjensen

truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Nope, the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. Which was you.

The burden of proof is his. He is the one making the claim that goes against the evidence.

Your claim is that YHWH was solely used by Jewish witches, for which you have provided zero evidence. A statement against an non-evidenced claim does not require anything, apart from "oh yeah, prove it!" which is what Homer asked you to do.

No, my claim was that YHWH was used in both Jewish and non-Jewish witchcraft. His claim was that it is only used by Jews. Read up on Aleister Crowley's use of YHWH in magic.

reply to post by adjensen

. . . most Protestants baptize infants . . .

That's a "dedication", not the same thing.

truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

"Jesous" is not a Greek word.

"Iesous", pronounced "ee-ay-soo", is the Greek transliteration of Yeshua, and everyone but the nitwits in your cult believes that.

"Iesous" is pronounced with the "j" sound. Yeshua has nothing to do with Jesus, Jeshas does. See strong's H3468.

As "Iesous" is not pronounced with the "J" sound, and there is no such Hebrew word as "Jeshas", once again, you are just inventing facts that even the most feebleminded can look up and see are wrong.

Strong's concordance on the Blue Letter Bible site has a nice audio pronunciation feature. I'd suggest you clean out your ears and take advantage of that function.

No, my claim was that YHWH was used in both Jewish and non-Jewish witchcraft. His claim was that it is only used by Jews. Read up on Aleister Crowley's use of YHWH in magic.

Actually, what Homer said was that it was used by Jewish mystics (not witches,) but unless it was used exclusively by Jewish mystics, that doesn't make any difference.

And unless Crowley had a time machine and went back 3500 years to introduce YHWH to the authors of the Hebrew Bible, his use of the word has no relevance, either.

Originally posted by HomerinNC

Originally posted by spartacus699
Marry is not to be worshiped like she's some kind of God.

Show me ONE Thing that says Catholics worship Mary
Show me ONE THING from the Catchesm or papal bull that says Catholics worship Mary 'like a god'

Do you really think satan is going to come out and tell you his entire plan of attack? That would be foolish. He's had several thousand years to work his lies, and believe me they go very deep. He's hiding what he does in plain sight and oh so many people fall right into his snare.

Ask yourself, how Mary can be the Mother of God? In order for her to be his mother she'd had to have pre-existed herself which would give her precedence over him. Perhaps you should go do some research on Semiramis, Nimrod and Tammuz. Do you know where the title "co-redemptrix" originated? With the Sumerian goddess Ishtar (Easter) a.k.a. Sekhmet the Lion Lady (Egyptian sungoddess), Asherah, Ashtoreth, Astarte the Queen of Heaven. Are you capable of simple addition? Now you know why you call "Mary" the queen of heaven, and co-redemptrix, titles belonging to the wife of the "god" of Ekron Ba'alzebub, her name Asherah whom the Lord forbade the worship of.

2 Kings 23:1-6

Josiah Restores True Worship

23 Now the king sent them to gather all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to him. 2 The king went up to the house of the Lord with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem—the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the Lord.

3 Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to follow the Lord and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant. 4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, the priests of the second order, and the doorkeepers, to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the articles that were made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel. 5 Then he removed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense on the high places in the cities of Judah and in the places all around Jerusalem, and those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven. 6 And he brought out the wooden image from the house of the Lord, to the Brook Kidron outside Jerusalem, burned it at the Brook Kidron and ground it to ashes, and threw its ashes on the graves of the common people.

Jeremiah 7:16-19

16 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me; for I will not hear you. 17 Do you not see what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger. 19 Do they provoke Me to anger?” says the Lord. “Do they not provoke themselves, to the shame of their own faces?”

Ever wonder why your golden orbed monstrances look like the symbol for female?







Monarch Orb (England)



Use of critical thinking here, would be profitable to you.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Ask yourself, how Mary can be the Mother of God?

Actually, to say that she is not the mother of God is to stray into Arianism. Jesus is the incarnation of the Word, fully man and fully God. So, unless you want to say that Mary didn't give birth to him, provide half of his DNA, didn't raise him as her child, and wasn't referred to as "Mom" by Jesus; or unless you reject Jesus as being God, then yes, Mary is the mother of God.

However, in no way does the Roman Catholic church teach that she is superior to God, that she pre-existed God, or that she is to be worshipped as God. It clearly rejects all of those things in the Catechism.

Originally posted by adjensen

As "Iesous" is not pronounced with the "J" sound,

Yes it is. The "j" sound has existed since at least ancient Egypt.

Originally posted by adjensen

and there is no such Hebrew word as "Jeshas",

I just posted the Strong's number.

Originally posted by adjensen

Actually, what Homer said was that it was used by Jewish mystics (not witches,) but unless it was used exclusively by Jewish mystics, that doesn't make any difference.

Jewish mystics are witches.

Originally posted by adjensen

And unless Crowley had a time machine and went back 3500 years to introduce YHWH to the authors of the Hebrew Bible, his use of the word has no relevance, either.

I did not say YHWH came from Aleister Crowley, only that he taught it's use in witchcraft.

Can you provide this "Hebrew Bible"?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Ask yourself, how Mary can be the Mother of God?

Actually, to say that she is not the mother of God is to stray into Arianism. Jesus is the incarnation of the Word, fully man and fully God. So, unless you want to say that Mary didn't give birth to him, provide half of his DNA, didn't raise him as her child, and wasn't referred to as "Mom" by Jesus; or unless you reject Jesus as being God, then yes, Mary is the mother of God.

However, in no way does the Roman Catholic church teach that she is superior to God, that she pre-existed God, or that she is to be worshipped as God. It clearly rejects all of those things in the Catechism.

Mary did not give birth to the Spirit of God, only His flesh.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

As "Iesous" is not pronounced with the "J" sound,

Yes it is. The "j" sound has existed since at least ancient Egypt.

Show me a Greek scholar, someone who actually knows the language, not someone like you, who just invents facts, who says that "Iesous" is pronounced "gee-zus". Barring that, you're in Fantasyland.

and there is no such Hebrew word as "Jeshas",

I just posted the Strong's number.

Do you commonly hallucinate? Yes, you posted Strong's number, in which entry the word "Jeshas" does not appear, so you either have the wrong number, you're lying, or you are seeing words in that entry that do not appear to anyone else. Here's the entry:

Actually, what Homer said was that it was used by Jewish mystics (not witches,) but unless it was used exclusively by Jewish mystics, that doesn't make any difference.

Jewish mystics are witches.

No, they are not. Mysticism and witchcraft are not the same thing -- witches believe that they can control the supernatural (i.e.: you claiming that magic words control whether God can save someone or not,) while mystics believe that they can be drawn closer to the supernatural through various practices like meditation and prayer.

I am neither, nor am I a particular fan or either, but at least I know the difference.

Originally posted by truejew
Mary did not give birth to the Spirit of God, only His flesh.

Yes, we are well aware of the fact that you are a follower of Arius, but I am of the understanding that Lonewolf is not.

Originally posted by adjensen

Show me a Greek scholar, someone who actually knows the language, not someone like you, who just invents facts, who says that "Iesous" is pronounced "gee-zus". Barring that, you're in Fantasyland.

Where do you think the "j" sound came from? Do you really think the Church, Catholics, and Protestants would have perverted the only name by which we must be saved by adding a "j" sound that was not there?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Mary did not give birth to the Spirit of God, only His flesh.

Yes, we are well aware of the fact that you are a follower of Arius, but I am of the understanding that Lonewolf is not.

Believing that Jesus was both fully God and man does not make someone a follower of Arius.

truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Show me a Greek scholar, someone who actually knows the language, not someone like you, who just invents facts, who says that "Iesous" is pronounced "gee-zus". Barring that, you're in Fantasyland.

Where do you think the "j" sound came from? Do you really think the Church, Catholics, and Protestants would have perverted the only name by which we must be saved by adding a "j" sound that was not there?

The "J" sound evolved over time, and there is no doubt that the Greek speaking people called him "ee-ay-soo" and the Latin speaking people called him "yay-soo", with nary a "J" in sight.

Your fundamental problem, which you are apparently too brainwashed to recognize or admit, is that you have an incredibly weak faith that you hang onto with these bizarre claims and legalisms. When it is said that Jesus is the name by which we must be saved, it means his authority, not the word used to refer to him, and he has that authority whether you call him "yay-shoe-ah", "yay-soo" or "gee-zus".

Demanding that a certain word must be used, and must be pronounced a certain way, which it never was until the English language evolved, centuries after Christ's death, is utterly ludicrous.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Get off your self-righteous high horse. The only righteousness you have is Christ's imputed righteousness. Get the plank out of your own eye so you can see clearly to remove the mote from someone else's eye. Don't call out someone for "unchristian like" speech, when the apostles said things like Paul did in Galatians which is a part of the Word of God. Even Jesus called a woman a dog, which was just about the most offensive thing one could say in that culture, and He made the comment that the Jewish leaders own mothers basically had sex with Satan.

It is through Christ that I have inward holiness that prevents me from using such language as lonewolf used.

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”


Luke 18:9-14

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Those verses are about the self righteous, not those made righteous through Christ.


Ephesians 4:24 KJV
[24] And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Originally posted by adjensen

The "J" sound evolved over time,

The "j" sound has existed since at least ancient Egypt.