Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by adjensen

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?

I was not speaking of that when you made your post. I was speaking of the Yahwehist's who hate Jesus and call Him "pig god".

reply to post by adjensen

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

Evidently, you didn't read very far in the document that you linked to.

Seventh-day Adventists are non creedal. So jmdewey has every right to question teachings in his denomination based upon best available scholarship on the Bible itself.

The document does not claim that SDAs are the only Christians, excluding other denominations.

It does state however, the primacy of scripture over tradition:

as of today, ecumenism still remains an elusive goal for Christianity at large. I venture to suggest that one of the greatest obstacles to the unity they seek has been failure of the churches to distinguish between Scripture and tradition. Jesus himself drew a clear distinction between written Scripture and tradition, and He went so far as to reject tradition as the words of men in order that Scripture as the Word of God might have the supremacy (see Mark 7:5-13). So while there may be ways in which we may cooperate with them in their pursuit of unity, we need to be committed to upholding that very same distinction between Scripture and tradition, as well as being resolute in not sacrificing any word of truth upon the altar of ecumenism.
2000 Annual Council September 29 Devotional

This is not just the position of SDA, but is the basic position of many non creedal denominations of Christians.

reply to post by adjensen

Here's a speech by someone from your old religion, going on about the importance of doctrine: 2000 Annual Council September 29 Devotional

In which he says,

I hasten to add, I emphatically do not mean that the emphasis of our Church should be on keeping doctrines; instead, I am proposing that the emphasis should shift to studying the Word.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

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?

I was not speaking of that when you made your post. I was speaking of the Yahwehist's who hate Jesus and call Him "pig god".

And what is your evidence that they "hate Jesus" and call him, intentionally, "pig god", because they "hate Jesus"?

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by adjensen

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

Evidently, you didn't read very far in the document that you linked to.

Seventh-day Adventists are non creedal. So jmdewey has every right to question teachings in his denomination based upon best available scholarship on the Bible itself.

That wasn't my point, rather it was that "doctrine" is not something unique to the Catholic church. Regardless of what importance is placed on it, it is a part of all Christian churches, because I'm not aware of any non-theological churches, and doctrine is what a church teaches.

reply to post by adjensen

Right, and I missed actually why I was responding.

I had to referee which children were going to play in what other child's yard. Grandfather type stuff.

Now I remember what I had intended as a point. You can quote to jmdewey things from non-apostolic (according to textual criticism) writings all day long, but he will simply ignore them as "traditions of men".

reply to post by adjensen

That wasn't my point, rather it was that "doctrine" is not something unique to the Catholic church. Regardless of what importance is placed on it, it is a part of all Christian churches, because I'm not aware of any non-theological churches, and doctrine is what a church teaches.

Something I thing was invented by the Catholic Church, and sometimes copied by others.

doctrine [ˈdɒktrɪn]
n
1. (Philosophy) a creed or body of teachings of a religious, political, or philosophical group presented for acceptance or belief; dogma
www.thefreedictionary.com...

It is here equating doctrine to "dogma", which is something I think is rejected by some churches. I don't believe in it, and I believe the same stance is taken by my denomination and where I learned to take the position that I hold.

reply to post by adjensen

And what is your evidence that they "hate Jesus" and call him, intentionally, "pig god", because they "hate Jesus"?

I'm no expert on the etymology of the name under discussion, but I do believe that similar issues are involved as to what Truejew and I discussed earlier in regards to worshipping a Talmudic entity: ie. There is a Talmudic influence behind using that name.

One of two reasons

1) The Talmudists consider the name too sacred to utter, and it's blasphemy to utter it. Therefore, by encouraging the use of that name, they are teaching Christians to blaspheme (in the Talmudist's view).

2) The Talmudists are very racist. By encouraging Christians to use the name of the Judean clan deity, they are encouraging the recognition of some "chosen tribe" being hierarchically superior to other humans.

The means by which this is done is indirect. The Talmudist will not teach these things directly, but rather have already nominal Christians do it for them as their agents.

reply to post by pthena


Well, part of it is his cult's fascination with words and their pronunciation. They believe that baptism, in Jesus' name, is required for salvation, and that you need to pronounce Jesus' name correctly, or it doesn't work. That, in my mind, is some form of magic ritual or incantation.

So it stands to reason that, if "Yah" or "Iah" is some pagan god name, it cannot be uttered, even in the sense of a word that has nothing to do with it ("Yahweh" or "messiah".) Reckart, of late, seems particularly obsessed with "Hallelujah", which he initially claimed was really "Hail Lucifer", so he told his followers to say "Hallelu-Jesus", but then he decided that "Hallelu" meant Lucifer, too, so he was teaching people to say "Lucifer Jesus"... or something like that... he lost me back on page one, lol.

See this thread and maybe you can sort it out

(And never mind that "Lucifer", as cited in Isaiah 14:12, the only place the word exists in the Bible, refers to the King of Babylon, not Satan.)

It does state however, the primacy of scripture over tradition:

as of today, ecumenism still remains an elusive goal for Christianity at large. I venture to suggest that one of the greatest obstacles to the unity they seek has been failure of the churches to distinguish between Scripture and tradition. Jesus himself drew a clear distinction between written Scripture and tradition, and He went so far as to reject tradition as the words of men in order that Scripture as the Word of God might have the supremacy (see Mark 7:5-13). So while there may be ways in which we may cooperate with them in their pursuit of unity, we need to be committed to upholding that very same distinction between Scripture and tradition, as well as being resolute in not sacrificing any word of truth upon the altar of ecumenism.
2000 Annual Council September 29 Devotional

This is not just the position of SDA, but is the basic position of many non creedal denominations of Christians.

Nowhere does Scripture claim its own primacy over apostolic tradition. Apostolic tradition is the oral teachings and practices of the Apostles, and those to whom the apostles gave their anointing and authority.

In the above passage, Jesus was talking about the tradition of the Jews which nullified the word of God. Speaking to the Jews, he said "your own" traditions, not "all traditions." Catholic tradition is apostolic, and it doesn't nullify the word of God, only enhances it and brings out its full meaning.

Furthermore, Scripture indicates that apostolic letters (Scripture) and oral tradition (teaching) are on equal footing (2 Thess. 2:15)

Here's an interesting verse: “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” (2 John 1:12)

John is saying "I could write you another apostolic letter (which would have become Scripture,) but I prefer to visit you in person and teach you orally (which is what tradition is.)

Therefore tradition>Scripture

reply to post by Snsoc

Apostolic tradition is the oral teachings and practices of the Apostles, and those to whom the apostles gave their anointing and authority.

I don't dispute the value of tradition. But the tradition itself seems almost lost to us. So that what the tradition may have been must also be subjected to the best historical information available to us. The idea of an unbroken, uncorrupted Apostolic Succession is highly disputed, and in fact, is rejected by most Christian groups not under Apostolic Succession.

The Talmud, for Judaism serves the function of being the "repository" of oral tradition going back to Moses and maybe even back to Adam. In reality it records the dialogs of rabbis beginning in about the time of Jesus, and becoming written records in about the time the Gospels were written.

Is it possible that the Church tradition is similar to Talmud, in that, centuries after the Apostles had died, councils and non-censored Church Fathers are taken as authority? That leaves out the censored fathers. In many cases their work is lost to us.

It seems right and proper for us to look askance upon movements that crop up claiming to restore a new Apostolic tradition, such as some of the movements we have been discussing. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has their claim pretty much built into their name.

But the question remains: Is the Papal claim of Apostolic tradition similar to the Mormon claim, only differing insofar as it is made many centuries earlier? Many people may answer that in the affirmative.

reply to post by adjensen

Both of the words that you bring up only appear in the accepted New Testament Canon in the Book of Revelation. Their appearance there is a major reason that I reject Revelation as a Christian document. At best, it can be seen by me, as a Jewish Messianic document. By being in the official Canon, it has become the main point of entry by which pre-Christian Jewish mythology has infested and infected the Church, giving rise to Christian Zionism and other insidious things.

Hallelujah
Hallelujah is a transliteration of the Hebrew word הַלְּלוּיָהּ (Modern halleluya, Tiberian halləlûyāh), which is composed of two elements: הַלְּלוּ (second-person imperative masculine plural form of the Hebrew verb hallal: an exhortation to "praise" addressed to several people[1] ) and יָהּ (Yah).
. . .
In the great song of praise to God for his triumph over the Whore of Babylon[5] in chapter 19 of the New Testament Book of Revelation, the Greek word ἀλληλούϊα (allēluia), a transliteration of the same Hebrew word, appears four times, as an expression of praise rather than an exhortation to praise.[6]

Lucifer
Before the rise of Christianity, the pseudepigrapha of Enochic Judaism, the form of Judaism witnessed to in 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, which enjoyed much popularity during the Second Temple period,[15] gave Satan an expanded role. They interpreted Isaiah 14:12-15 as applicable to Satan, and presented him as a fallen angel cast out of Heaven.[16] Christian tradition, influenced by this presentation,[16] came to use the Latin word for "morning star", lucifer, as a proper name ("Lucifer") for Satan as Satan was before his fall. As a result, "Lucifer has become a by-word for Satan in the Church and in popular literature",[2] as in Dante Alighieri's Inferno and John Milton's Paradise Lost.

I couldn't read very far into the webpage that you linked to. Memories of myself singing that popular Pentecostal hypnotic chant of "Hallelujah" over and over again rose up and caused me to become physically ill.

That, in my mind, is some form of magic ritual or incantation.

Yes. Like that.

reply to post by pthena


I do recommend not taking what Adjensen says about what we believe to be the truth. At first I thought he was just misunderstanding what we teach, but he has continued on with his errors after being corrected several times.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

Well, part of it is his cult's fascination with words and their pronunciation.

What you call "fascination with words and their pronunciation" would be better said as defense of the name of Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved, against the Yahwehist's who claim that Jesus is "zeus", "pig god", or "earth pig".

Originally posted by adjensen

They believe that baptism, in Jesus' name, is required for salvation,

Baptism is a necessary action of faith the same as repentance is a necessary action of faith.

Originally posted by adjensen

and that you need to pronounce Jesus' name correctly, or it doesn't work. That, in my mind, is some form of magic ritual or incantation.

Again, we do not teach that. Your accusation of witchcraft is false.

reply to post by truejew

I do recommend not taking what Adjensen says about what we believe to be the truth.

I am generally skeptical of accusations made about individuals when they are from 3rd parties. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been a member of more than a few groups.

The one that was closest to being a personality cult claimed to have the correct understanding of Jesus. Yet in three weeks of almost daily meetings with these people all they ever talked about was their own Apostolic and Prophetic authority. They had nothing to say about Jesus.

I've also had a bit of experience with people criticizing other people to third parties. It's ineffective if the topic of criticism is seen as not very relevant to the third party. It never worked on me when I was younger. I always wanted to find out for myself.

but he has continued on with his errors after being corrected several times.

His criticism concerning baptism (as a work) seemed particularly disingenuous since his Church teaches baptism as necessary also.


You and I may both agree that Yahwehists have a serious problem in their understanding, but that does not mean that we agree exactly what that problem is.

reply to post by pthena

I've also had a bit of experience with people criticizing other people to third parties. It's ineffective if the topic of criticism is seen as not very relevant to the third party. It never worked on me when I was younger. I always wanted to find out for myself.

I thought it might be helpful to add a personal anecdote here for illustrative purposes.

When I was in High School, I happened to get into a conversation with a girl during lunch break about Biblical topics. Well, one thing led to another, and I ended up at her house after school.
Her mother got the notion that I was a boyfriend or something.

One thing led to another, and I ended up visiting their Church on a Sunday.
It was a Foursquare Gospel Church.
After the service, I was introduced to the pastor.
We got to chatting.
And as these things go, he asked me about my affiliations.
I responded that I was currently reading the magazines put out by a lay Theologian in Australia.

He stepped back appalled.
"Don't follow that man", he exclaimed, "He's a schismatic!"
He elaborated, "He has caused divisions in churches."

He went on a bit more, I tuned him out,
glanced over at the sign over the door and ran through the list in my head,
"Foursquare Gospel, split from Nazarene, split from Methodist, split from Anglican, split from Roman Catholic"
It struck me that his argument was rather weak.

reply to post by Snsoc

Nowhere does Scripture claim its own primacy over apostolic tradition.

There would not have been a such thing at the time to call it by that name.
But the traditions of men are repudiated throughout the New Testament.
The Sermon on the Mount is one such example where Jesus says, "You have heard it said . . . but I say . . ."

Furthermore, Scripture indicates that apostolic letters (Scripture) and oral tradition (teaching) are on equal footing (2 Thess. 2:15)

2 Thess. is a forgery written after Paul was no longer around, so of course it would say that.
That would have been the point of making the forgery, for the hierarchy to give themselves authority.
This indicates the moral depravity of those creating "oral tradition".

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

Well, part of it is his cult's fascination with words and their pronunciation.

What you call "fascination with words and their pronunciation" would be better said as defense of the name of Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved, against the Yahwehist's who claim that Jesus is "zeus", "pig god", or "earth pig".

Still waiting on evidence that "Yahweh" is "pig god", and that people know that for a fact and use it anyway. You seemed to have agreed earlier that if someone used that name unintentionally, it wasn't an insult.

and that you need to pronounce Jesus' name correctly, or it doesn't work. That, in my mind, is some form of magic ritual or incantation.

Again, we do not teach that. Your accusation of witchcraft is false.

We've gone around this many times, and you've consistently failed to answer this direct question:

Yes or no -- can God save someone who was baptized in a rite that cited any name or word other than "gee-zus"?

If yes, then it doesn't matter.

If no, then you say that God is limited by your speech and actions, and you are preaching magic, not faith.

We both know that your answer is "no", because that's the elitist aspect of Gary Reckart's cult, even though you won't admit to it because of the clear implications of saying "no".

Originally posted by pthena

but he has continued on with his errors after being corrected several times.

His criticism concerning baptism (as a work) seemed particularly disingenuous since his Church teaches baptism as necessary also.

I am a Roman Catholic by choice because, after spending a lot of time (and I do mean a lot, lol) researching church history and reading early Christian and pseudo-Christian writers, I decided that if there ever was a "true church", it only existed in the past, prior to the Great Schism.

As a Methodist at the time, that led me to the concept of Paleo-Orthodoxy. I wanted to pursue that, but as it is not a "real" religion, and I wanted to get closer to it than the Methodist church offered, that meant either Anglican, Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

I detest the Episcopalian church, so Anglican was out, and there are no Eastern Orthodox churches near me, which left Roman Catholic, and I converted in 2012. Because of my purpose in converting, as well as my Protestant tendencies, I do not agree with the Catholic church on many things, including baptism -- I do not believe that it is required for salvation.

As I have said in the past, it is only through the patience and tolerance of my priests that I haven't been kicked out of the church yet, lol.

reply to post by charles1952

I'm wondering, what heretical idea do you think that verse creates? That Mary was the Savior? That Jesus wasn't? Sure, you're right that that verse could cause confusion if taken in isolation and interpreted improperly. But what result in modern Christianity do you object to?

That verse being changed makes the implication from the very beginning that she was the Savior all along, and it relegates Jesus to being nothing of great import, nothing more than a footnote. That in tandem with small things like "hail Mary's" and other symbolic things most people do not recognize like "Mary Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" only work to diminish Christ. God is the sole redeemer, he has no "co-redemptrix".