Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Akragon

Im not even sure how that would work...

I thought that we had already established that life on Earth is not separation from God, even the Atheist is not separate.

Yet some people keep demanding that some other people get cast out. That's unmerciful toward God.

I'm beginning to doubt that I'll ever make it back into the Christian fold. But you know what? God is out here too.

I see what you mean... he did say what you do to the least of them you've done to me...

Im not saying that he was God, but unkind acts towards people is in fact being unmerciful towards a part of God...

Kinda reminds me of this thread...

Blasphemy... more then you think it is

By the way, God doesn't just hang out with Christians... so I wouldn't worry too much

reply to post by Akragon

By the way, God doesn't just hang out with Christians... so I wouldn't worry too much

I'm not worried for me, I'm worried for them.

I'll read that other thread you linked to. I think we may be a wee bit off topic here.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

So you agree that God can save someone who doesn't follow your "gee-zus" rituals?

What matters is that God will not.

Originally posted by adjensen

Unfortunately, you follow that up by saying that God is uncaring

God is not uncaring to reject those who reject Him and His plan of salvation. A person could make the same "uncaring God" comment to you if a person rejected Christ according to your believed plan of salvation.

Originally posted by adjensen

-- a person who loved him all their lives, put their faith in him and lived by Christ's commandments would be condemned simply because they got the details wrong in one rite (even details that they had no control over -- you said that if an Apostolic Oneness pastor was a secret homosexual, no one he baptized was legitimately baptized.)

A person has not put their faith in Christ if they reject His Acts 2:38 plan of salvation.

Originally posted by adjensen

I prefer a caring, loving God, not some unsympathetic taskmaster with clipboard and checklist.

Again, God is not uncaring to reject those who reject Him and His Acts 2:38 plan. You have been told God's plan of salvation, not just by me, but by reading the Scripture yourself. Reject it and you will be without excuse.

Originally posted by truejew
A person has not put their faith in Christ if they reject His Acts 2:38 plan of salvation.

We are saved through faith in Christ, not faith in the author of Acts. Christ tells us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and no one, apart from the author of Acts, says to baptize only in the name of Jesus (which was not pronounced "gee-zus" in the lifetime of the author of Acts.)

Christ did not write the book of Acts, nor did any Apostle, so it is spurious to claim that Acts 2:38 represents his plan of salvation.

The god that you worship, an elitist thug who condemns anyone who refuses to listen to Gary Reckart and his nonsensical theology, is not the God of the Bible.

reply to post by adjensen

The god that you worship, an elitist thug who condemns anyone who refuses to listen to Gary Reckart and his nonsensical theology, is not the God of the Bible.

You aren't showing that you've put in the hard work necessary to be an effective polemicist.

1) You have not first demonstrated why Acts should take second place to the "Great Commission" statements in the Gospels.

2) Therefore your statement about the "God of the Bible" has no weight.

3) You have given up too easily in trying to understand the point of view that Truejew holds.

4) Making mockery of how the name of Truejews' Lord is pronounced puts you squarely in the category of "people not to be listened to"

If you have any love for Truejew, please show it. If faith without works is dead, so also love without works is illusionary

For the fundamentalist mindset, every part of the Bible is without error. Therefor Acts has as much weight as any other part of the New Testament. If you really took the time, you would find that Acts holds the key, not only for why baptism is in the name of Jesus, but also why Oneness Theology is as logical as any other Christian belief, and why Apostles are still necessary.

Peter is supposed to have delivered this impassioned speech in Acts 2.

38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.”

If you look closely at the last phrase, this is the Acts version of the "Great Commission" Therefore, for Oneness believers the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, baptism in the name gives the Holy Spirit.

Now look at Acts 8

14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for as yet he had fallen on none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of Christ Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

So, if it takes not only the baptism in the name of Jesus, but the hands of an Apostle, then Apostles must be around today. That's the logic.

The easy part is understanding the position. The hard part is demonstrating how this may or may not be accurate. The hardest part is giving someone something better to replace it.

Originally posted by adjensen

We are saved through faith in Christ, not faith in the author of Acts.

The author of the book of Acts wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by adjensen

Christ tells us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and no one, apart from the author of Acts, says to baptize only in the name of Jesus (which was not pronounced "gee-zus" in the lifetime of the author of Acts.)

You are choosing to make a doctrine based on only one verse that is considered to be questionable by scholars and does not fit with Luke's account of what Jesus said or with what the apostles did, or with what the apostles taught.

Originally posted by adjensen

Christ did not write the book of Acts, nor did any Apostle, so it is spurious to claim that Acts 2:38 represents his plan of salvation.

You attack us about viewing Matthew 28:19 as questionable when there is evidence, but then want to throw out the entire book of Acts with no evidence just because it does not fit your teaching.

Originally posted by adjensen

The god that you worship, an elitist thug who condemns anyone who refuses to listen to Gary Reckart and his nonsensical theology, is not the God of the Bible.

The God we worship is merciful to provide a way of salvation for you. It is you who reject Him. Let go of your hate of God and repent.

reply to post by pthena


Good post.

However we do not believe that there are currently living apostles. Their purpose was to be the foundation of the Church. Now that the foundation is laid, only their writings are needed. The laying on of hands can be done by any of the four remaining of the five fold ministry.

reply to post by truejew

However we do not believe that there are currently living apostles.

That's why people are reminded not to judge others. The judgment I passed on adjensen has fallen on me.
because I didn't take the time either. I merely assumed that your group was a New Apostolic Group merely because I am familiar with that type of group. Now I must suffer for poor judgment.

The laying on of hands can be done by any of the four remaining of the five fold ministry.

That would include Pastors and Teachers.

I have often thought, that in the process of baptism, the baptizer has his hands on the one being baptized. Then baptism in the name of Jesus, includes the laying on of hands. Therefore, no additional separate rite called "laying on of hands" would be necessary.

Does that make sense?

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by adjensen
3) You have given up too easily in trying to understand the point of view that Truejew holds.

Oh, I understand pretty well his point of view -- he and I have been going around on this for a long time.

4) Making mockery of how the name of Truejews' Lord is pronounced puts you squarely in the category of "people not to be listened to"

I'm not "making mockery" of it, I'm making his position clear -- it HAS to be pronounced that way, because that's God's name, that's always been God's name, and it you call him anything but that, even if you're Spanish and pronounce Jesus "hay-soos", they make no guarantees that you'll be saved.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

We are saved through faith in Christ, not faith in the author of Acts.

The author of the book of Acts wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by adjensen

Christ tells us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and no one, apart from the author of Acts, says to baptize only in the name of Jesus (which was not pronounced "gee-zus" in the lifetime of the author of Acts.)

You are choosing to make a doctrine based on only one verse that is considered to be questionable by scholars and does not fit with Luke's account of what Jesus said or with what the apostles did, or with what the apostles taught.

No, I'm not -- as I've said all along, baptismal form doesn't matter and is not what saves you. The only place that you can cite that you think supports your "you must be baptized in the name of Jesus to be saved" is in Acts, which was not written by Christ or any Apostle, so you're elevating the author of that book over Christ, as well as Paul and the Apostles who did write scripture that says nothing about being "baptized in the name of Jesus or you can't be saved."

A drop dead issue like that would be crystal clear and throughout the whole of the text, and yet it is neither.

You attack us about viewing Matthew 28:19 as questionable when there is evidence, but then want to throw out the entire book of Acts with no evidence just because it does not fit your teaching.

Show me, please, where I "throw out the entire book of Acts." Telling you that your misrepresentation of parts of it is wrong is not disputing the text, merely your distortion of it.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by truejew

However we do not believe that there are currently living apostles.

That's why people are reminded not to judge others. The judgment I passed on adjensen has fallen on me.

because I didn't take the time either. I merely assumed that your group was a New Apostolic Group merely because I am familiar with that type of group. Now I must suffer for poor judgment.

The laying on of hands can be done by any of the four remaining of the five fold ministry.

That would include Pastors and Teachers.

I have often thought, that in the process of baptism, the baptizer has his hands on the one being baptized. Then baptism in the name of Jesus, includes the laying on of hands. Therefore, no additional separate rite called "laying on of hands" would be necessary.

Does that make sense?

That's ok.

I have seen some receive the Holy Spirit during baptism. So I could see that as being the laying on of hands.

reply to post by adjensen


Baptism is spoken of throughout the New Testament.

I don't see how I could be misinterpreting Acts 2:38 as you claim. Peter preached the Gospel... Those who heard the message asked "what shall we do"... Peter responded with repent, be baptized in Jesus name, and receive the Holy Spirit... Those who followed Peter's words were added to the Church. I do not see how it can be interpreted any other way.

reply to post by adjensen

he and I have been going around on this for a long time.

I've only been on a couple of threads where the two of you have been at it. So, I probably missed quite a bit.

they make no guarantees that you'll be saved.

Are they making guarantees? The only guarantee I've seen so far is the guarantee that if someone is baptized in the name of Yahweh or some variant thereof, that that person is not baptized into Jesus.

Since I happen to be a Crypto Neo-Marcionite (third splinter of the Unity-Duality debate), then I happen to agree that the name given to the collection of manifestations as if they were one, is not Jesus. Baptism into any other name than Jesus (however it is pronounced) is not the same as baptism into the name of the pseudo entity (however it is pronounced).

Is there something of importance that I'm missing here?

reply to post by pthena

If you look closely at the last phrase, this is the Acts version of the "Great Commission" Therefore, for Oneness believers the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ.

Here's the problem with that -- we know for a fact that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not Jesus, whether pronounced "gee-zus", "hay-soos" or anything else.

I'm reading an interesting book right now called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, which I picked up because I'm into maths and a lot of the text is based on a statistical analysis of the cultural aspects of the New Testament. Right now I'm reading a chapter on the names of people in the Bible, and I realized something that I hadn't before -- the text itself is a proof of Jesus' name not being "Jesus".

Reckart gets one thing right -- the English "Jesus" is an adoption of the Greek "Iêsous". And if you look at a Greek New Testament, you'll find "Iêsous" all over the place. Can it be found in other Greek documents? Well, yes, it's all over the place... it's in Josephus, government documents, ossuaries, and the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible.

And right there, Reckart either gets lazy, or he gets dishonest, because finding the Greek "Jesus" in the Hebrew Bible should be pretty big news for him. Proof that Jesus existed before the incarnation, with the name "Jesus". But either he's lazy, and never looked, or he's dishonest, because he looked and ignored what he saw, because "Iêsous" in the Septuagint never refers to God -- it's the Greek transliteration of a Hebrew name, Yeshua, whom we know as "Joshua".

So, if you were at the wedding feast in Cana, saw Jesus come in and said "Hi gee-zus!" he wouldn't even look at you, because his name was Joshua, or, rather, the Hebrew pronunciation of Yeshua, which is not pronounced "gee-zus".

There are three claims of Reckart that we can take away from this:

1. The name of Jesus is not pronounced "gee-zus", it's not even close
2. Since no one has ever (as far as I can tell) baptized anyone in the name of Joshua, "baptism in the name of Jesus" doesn't mean what he claims it does, or else heaven is very empty
3. The eternal true name of God is obviously not the name that Jesus went by, because Yeshua was a common name, and Jews would not name anyone with the sacred name of God

I'd suggest that TrueJew head down to Jesus House and tell Reckart to re-baptize him in the name of Joshua, since he's convinced that God won't save him without being baptized in that name, but I don't think he'd have that great of a reception, lol.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

If you look closely at the last phrase, this is the Acts version of the "Great Commission" Therefore, for Oneness believers the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ.

Here's the problem with that -- we know for a fact that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not Jesus, whether pronounced "gee-zus", "hay-soos" or anything else.

I'm reading an interesting book right now called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, which I picked up because I'm into maths and a lot of the text is based on a statistical analysis of the cultural aspects of the New Testament. Right now I'm reading a chapter on the names of people in the Bible, and I realized something that I hadn't before -- the text itself is a proof of Jesus' name not being "Jesus".

Reckart gets one thing right -- the English "Jesus" is an adoption of the Greek "Iêsous". And if you look at a Greek New Testament, you'll find "Iêsous" all over the place. Can it be found in other Greek documents? Well, yes, it's all over the place... it's in Josephus, government documents, ossuaries, and the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible.

And right there, Reckart either gets lazy, or he gets dishonest, because finding the Greek "Jesus" in the Hebrew Bible should be pretty big news for him. Proof that Jesus existed before the incarnation, with the name "Jesus". But either he's lazy, and never looked, or he's dishonest, because he looked and ignored what he saw, because "Iêsous" in the Septuagint never refers to God -- it's the Greek transliteration of a Hebrew name, Yeshua, whom we know as "Joshua".

So, if you were at the wedding feast in Cana, saw Jesus come in and said "Hi gee-zus!" he wouldn't even look at you, because his name was Joshua, or, rather, the Hebrew pronunciation of Yeshua, which is not pronounced "gee-zus".

There are three claims of Reckart that we can take away from this:

1. The name of Jesus is not pronounced "gee-zus", it's not even close
2. Since no one has ever (as far as I can tell) baptized anyone in the name of Joshua, "baptism in the name of Jesus" doesn't mean what he claims it does, or else heaven is very empty
3. The eternal true name of God is obviously not the name that Jesus went by, because Yeshua was a common name, and Jews would not name anyone with the sacred name of God

I'd suggest that TrueJew head down to Jesus House and tell Reckart to re-baptize him in the name of Joshua, since he's convinced that God won't save him without being baptized in that name, but I don't think he'd have that great of a reception, lol.

The mistake you make is that Jesus' name is not Joshua, Joshua's name was Jesus. The name of Jesus in the Old Testament was corrupted into Joshua by the Jews attempt to erase the name of Jesus from the Old Testament.

reply to post by adjensen

The only place that you can cite that you think supports your "you must be baptized in the name of Jesus to be saved" is in Acts, which was not written by Christ or any Apostle, so you're elevating the author of that book

Excuse me - for a moment. Isn't the Book of Acts in the Canon? Isn't the Book of Acts a part of Christian Tradition?

By what measure are you denigrating not only your own Canon, but also your own Tradition?

Originally posted by truejew
The mistake you make is that Jesus' name is not Joshua, Joshua's name was Jesus. The name of Jesus in the Old Testament was corrupted into Joshua by the Jews attempt to erase the name of Jesus from the Old Testament.

What?

What's your evidence of that?

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by adjensen

The only place that you can cite that you think supports your "you must be baptized in the name of Jesus to be saved" is in Acts, which was not written by Christ or any Apostle, so you're elevating the author of that book

Excuse me - for a moment. Isn't the Book of Acts in the Canon? Isn't the Book of Acts a part of Christian Tradition?

By what measure are you denigrating not only your own Canon, but also your own Tradition?

How does what I wrote denigrate anything? Do you think Acts was written by Christ or an Apostle?

Acts does not say "you must be baptized in the name of Jesus to be saved", these guys just infer that that's what it says, and I'm questioning why the author of Acts suddenly has supremacy as regards theology.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
The mistake you make is that Jesus' name is not Joshua, Joshua's name was Jesus. The name of Jesus in the Old Testament was corrupted into Joshua by the Jews attempt to erase the name of Jesus from the Old Testament.

What?

What's your evidence of that?

The Greek Septuagint, translated around 280 BC, has the name Iesous instead of Joshua.

Plus the fact that Jesus means "God delivers" in Hebrew and Joshua does not.

reply to post by adjensen

Do you think Acts was written by Christ or an Apostle?

No, it was written anonymously as a report of what was going on in the Christian movement. Whether it's good history writing or not is one aspect upon which to judge it. As containing what may be essential elements of what the author reports concerning Christian belief and practice, it very well may be an important piece in understanding early Christianity. It should not, therefore be dismissed.

Acts does not say "you must be baptized in the name of Jesus to be saved"

You may be correct there. It is inferred as the answer to the question "what must we do then, to be saved."

I think that some thought must be placed in defining just what being save from "this corrupt generation" may mean. Peter reportedly said "save yourselves from this corrupt generation" (Acts 2:40)

What is meant by "generation"? Is the call from the Lord our God (Act 2:39) Something that the Lord can do Himself, or something that requires evangelists?

I think I'll take a nap now.