Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by adjensen

No, I don't believe that simply being a Trinitarian, or saying the creed, makes you a Christian, but rejecting it makes you something else. Personally, I don't think that there is anything wrong with being "something else", but I do think it improper to claim to be a Christian while rejecting the creed that defines Christian beliefs.

You, at least, understand some of the reasons why I'm not a Christian, or at least don't claim to be.

Definitions are very important. If I am correct, the reason for the Nicene creed was to serve as the definition of Christianity for the purpose of recognition by the Roman Empire, as a distinct and defined religion.

In part, I suppose that's true, though the religion had been legalized before Nicaea. As I noted earlier, Constantine didn't care which way the issue with Arias was resolved, because he wasn't a Christian and had no horse in the race.

The major reason for Nicaea was the division that was taking place as a result of Arianism and the desire for consensus and unity. With the church "out in the open" and likely to stay that way, it was important to settle, once and for all, core issues that were splintering the faith. Unfortunately, all we've done since then (well, since 1054) is to further splinter the church with denominationalism.

reply to post by adjensen

It doesn't say that the person sinned against you, just that they sinned, and heresy would be a sin.

Are you the Pope now and can decide what a sin is? The New Testament does not explicitly say that heresy is a sin. Your original remark that I was commenting on was that the New Testament does not say to ignore 'heretics'. My comment was that it does not even use that word in that way, and if maybe it does mean something like what we think the word heresy means today, then it was in a book that is a forgery.
I do not believe that you have yet demonstrated how the NT commands believers to enforce orthodoxy.

Pretty clearly indicates that Paul kicked them out of the church.

Besides this being a quote from a forged document, it does not mean to be "kicked out", and could mean exactly what you claimed that the NT did not say, which was to 'ignore the person and if they are of the devil, then they will get their own punishment without us having to do anything to them.'

I don't know that you throw out an entire text because of one bit that you disagree with.

It shows to me that the perpetrator of this forgery, Titus, was not even a Christian if he had such evil thoughts towards other people that he does not even know.

There are questions about 1 & 2 Peter, as well as the pastoral letters, but they were accepted by those closest to their writing, the Church Fathers, and modern textual criticism has reasonable answers (Peter's letters being dictated, and the differences due to different scribes; Paul's letters being written to personal friends, with different advice than those written to churches.)

All you have are theories but evidence shows they were later, so those don't hold up.

Regardless, the canon is a demonstration of what the early church thought and taught.

The people who "won" the war.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
We are not speaking of just a difference of words, but of blasphemers who hate Jesus Christ.

... as evidenced by the fact that they disagree with Gary Reckart.

The slide down the slippery slope into the abyss of hell began right in the UPC church.

While we do not expect David K. Bernard to become a Jesus name blasphemer as these have developed into, we do hold him accountable for the destruction of these souls. He wrote those lies that the name of God was Yahweh. He planted the seed. He is the one who is responsible for them believing this cult mess.

There are many thousands of others who will be turned into blasphemers just like these in Indonesia.

I am warning every one of you: do not believe the lies of David K. Bernard. The name of God never was or ever will be Yahweh. The name of God is Jesus and it has always been Jesus. Do not be deceived by the UPC, by David K. Bernard, or by any other means. (Source)

Any time you call God something other than Jesus, no matter what your intentions, it's apparently blasphemy and evidence that you hate Jesus Christ.

You do not believe calling Jesus "pig god" is blasphemy?

reply to post by ballymoney50

Maybe i didn't listen to well in church for 18 years!!

Don't blame yourself.
That was the whole purpose of the creeds being established, not to really inform anyone but to stop discussion.
It is set up to make it impossible to even discuss the Trinity without falling under some sort of 'error'.

reply to post by adjensen


Again, we do not teach salvation by works. Stop lying about what we teach.

reply to post by adjensen

No, he's not a Christian because his bunch rejects the Nicene Creed, specifically the Trinitarian parts. I don't know about the Athanasian Creed, but I doubt they're in favour of that, either.

I believe that I am a Christian and I reject those creeds.
If you want to say he is not a Catholic, then fine, because that is a private club that can make up its own rues.

. . .
and you must show evidence of being saved by speaking in tongues . . .

I would not want to join that club, but maybe some people would.
The way that you know Christians is how they love one another, and that is in the Bible, and according to that gauge, you may find yourself out.

Originally posted by truejew
You do not believe calling Jesus "pig god" is blasphemy?

As I understand it, Reckart's theory is that "Yah" was an Egyptian moon god, and, by extension, "Yahweh" is an Egyptian moon god, because it has the letters Y, A and H in it. Kind of how he misspells "Messiah" and you misspell "Jeremiah" because it has some evil letter combination in it.

That is irrational.

However, that irrationality pales in comparison with the belief that people, who have no idea about "Yah", could possibly be insulting God by using a name that has those letters in it.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Again, we do not teach salvation by works.

You've said that baptism, in the name of Jesus, is required for salvation. Baptism is a work, therefore you teach salvation by works. You further teach that speaking in tongues, a work, is required for salvation.

If you wish to retract your statement that baptism, in the name of Jesus, is required for salvation, along with your statement that speaking in tongues is required, I'll retract my statement, otherwise it stands as an accurate representation of what you teach.

reply to post by adjensen

If Jesus wasn't God, then the Doctrine of Atonement is invalidated, and he died for nothing.

"Doctrine" being a rule of belief enforced by the power of the Pope to decide who can go to heaven.
We who are not Catholics do not care about doctrine.
As for atonement, if you mean 'paying' for sins, it is not "valid" anyway according to the New Testament.
What is sometimes translated as atonement means to sooth damaged relationships. The atonement is produced by God giving to us Jesus, and his god status is irrelevant, where the important thing is that God gave him to us to reconcile us to Him.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
You do not believe calling Jesus "pig god" is blasphemy?

As I understand it, Reckart's theory is that "Yah" was an Egyptian moon god, and, by extension, "Yahweh" is an Egyptian moon god, because it has the letters Y, A and H in it. Kind of how he misspells "Messiah" and you misspell "Jeremiah" because it has some evil letter combination in it.

That is irrational.

However, that irrationality pales in comparison with the belief that people, who have no idea about "Yah", could possibly be insulting God by using a name that has those letters in it.

That has nothing to do with my question.

Is it blasphemy to call Jesus "pig god"?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

No, he's not a Christian because his bunch rejects the Nicene Creed, specifically the Trinitarian parts. I don't know about the Athanasian Creed, but I doubt they're in favour of that, either.

I believe that I am a Christian and I reject those creeds.

You can believe whatever you want, but you're coming up with a custom definition of the word, which would be rejected by every Christian church, so I don't think you're making a valid statement.

The religion has the right to define itself, and for 1,600 years, that has meant adherence to the Nicene Creed, and you stomping your foot and demanding that things change to suit you does not invalidate it.

Originally posted by truejew
That has nothing to do with my question.

Is it blasphemy to call Jesus "pig god"?

I'm still trying to figure out how you think anyone is calling Jesus "pig god".

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Again, we do not teach salvation by works.

You've said that baptism, in the name of Jesus, is required for salvation. Baptism is a work, therefore you teach salvation by works. You further teach that speaking in tongues, a work, is required for salvation.

If you wish to retract your statement that baptism, in the name of Jesus, is required for salvation, along with your statement that speaking in tongues is required, I'll retract my statement, otherwise it stands as an accurate representation of what you teach.

Baptism in Jesus name is necessary, but it is not the work that saves us, it is the faith that saves us. Baptism done without faith saves no one. Faith without works is dead. That does not mean that it is the works that save though.

If you can't understand what we teach, you should not attempt to tell others what we teach.

reply to post by adjensen

. . . you're coming up with a custom definition of the word . . .

You are.

n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
www.thefreedictionary.com...

No mention of creeds.
You are only defining membership in your own denomination.
If you restrict Christianity only to your own particular brand, then you are the one outside the mainstream and have boxed yourself into a cult mind-set.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
That has nothing to do with my question.

Is it blasphemy to call Jesus "pig god"?

I'm still trying to figure out how you think anyone is calling Jesus "pig god".

I said that calling Jesus "pig god" is blasphemy.

You then responded with an attack that we think any one who disagrees with us is guilty of blasphemy. Which makes it sound like you disagree with what I said.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
That has nothing to do with my question.

Is it blasphemy to call Jesus "pig god"?

I'm still trying to figure out how you think anyone is calling Jesus "pig god".

I said that calling Jesus "pig god" is blasphemy.

You then responded with an attack that we think any one who disagrees with us is guilty of blasphemy. Which makes it sound like you disagree with what I said.

Actually, what I said was this:

Any time you call God something other than Jesus, no matter what your intentions, it's apparently blasphemy and evidence that you hate Jesus Christ.

The key words there are "no matter your intentions." Intentionally calling Jesus "pig god" is blasphemous, doing so without intent would not be. But I still fail to see how anyone is calling Jesus "pig god" -- the articles of Reckart's that I've read are nonsensical.

reply to post by adjensen


All the power to ya my friend

And since this isn't the "trinity" thread... I'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
That has nothing to do with my question.

Is it blasphemy to call Jesus "pig god"?

I'm still trying to figure out how you think anyone is calling Jesus "pig god".

I said that calling Jesus "pig god" is blasphemy.

You then responded with an attack that we think any one who disagrees with us is guilty of blasphemy. Which makes it sound like you disagree with what I said.

Actually, what I said was this:

Any time you call God something other than Jesus, no matter what your intentions, it's apparently blasphemy and evidence that you hate Jesus Christ.

The key words there are "no matter your intentions." Intentionally calling Jesus "pig god" is blasphemous, doing so without intent would not be. But I still fail to see how anyone is calling Jesus "pig god" -- the articles of Reckart's that I've read are nonsensical.

I fail to see the purpose of your post if you agree with us.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

If Jesus wasn't God, then the Doctrine of Atonement is invalidated, and he died for nothing.

"Doctrine" being a rule of belief enforced by the power of the Pope to decide who can go to heaven.
We who are not Catholics do not care about doctrine.

Well, then you're in luck, because doctrine is simply the theological explanation of what is believed in the Creed.

I don't know what you're talking about with your "We who are not Catholics" jibe -- Protestant churches support doctrine, as well, often the same doctrine as the Catholic church. Here's a speech by someone from your old religion, going on about the importance of doctrine: 2000 Annual Council September 29 Devotional

Originally posted by truejew
I fail to see the purpose of your post if you agree with us.

So you agree that saying "Yahweh" is fine, then, since no one can rationally come to the conclusion that it's an insult because it happens to have the letters Y, A and H in it?