Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
So in context of the earlier comment, what exactly did Jesus tell His followers in Matthew 28:19?

That repentance and remission of sins be preached in His name.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And I never said they disobeyed Jesus. As has been pointed out earlier, "in the Name of" means in/under the authority of.

edit on 30-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

However, the name was spoken over the person to show in whose authority the person was being baptized into. The Bible and writings of the early Christians show us that the name was spoken at baptism.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

You seem to be stuck in the opinion that we teach long hair makes a woman holy. We do not teach that.

I'm still trying to figure out what you do teach -- I'll ask again, can a woman who has short hair be saved? And how short is short? Can she have a bob? A pageboy? Is there some visual guide that is given to Apostolic Oneness women that tells them how to dress and behave? If you can point me to that, it'll save a lot of time.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

It's funny that we somehow need an esoteric understanding of everything Jesus said.

He told us not to judge appearances, and said it's what comes from a person's heart that defiles them.

It is what comes from a person's heart that defiles them.

I know, I said that.

I know, I said that too.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

You seem to be stuck in the opinion that we teach long hair makes a woman holy. We do not teach that.

Have you ever heard of the "inversion principle" in logic? When you try and make the argument that women with short hair are unholy, you indirectly assert by the principle of inversion that women with long hair are holy.

That logic is incorrect. If a cookie looks bad on the outside, it is because it is also bad on the inside. A cookie that looks good on the outside, can be either good or bad on the inside.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'm still trying to figure out what you do teach -- I'll ask again, can a woman who has short hair be saved?

If it is short due to being cut, having a homosexual spirit, then no. If due to having cancer and it falling out, then yes.

Originally posted by adjensen

And how short is short?

It is not exactly the length of the hair, but whether it has been cut. It is also not the action of cutting, but the spirit behind the cutting that condemns.

As I and NOTurTypical said in a previous post, It is what comes from a person's heart that defiles them.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'm still trying to figure out what you do teach -- I'll ask again, can a woman who has short hair be saved?

If it is short due to being cut, having a homosexual spirit, then no.

I don't know why you keep tossing out this "homosexual spirit" thing, but is that the limiter? That any woman who cuts her hair does so because she's a homosexual, or has homosexual urges? That's irrational, but you seem to be saying that no woman can cut her hair and be saved, and the reason is that homosexuals cannot be saved. Is that it?

If due to having cancer and it falling out, then yes.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you have a special dispensation for women with cancer.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'm still trying to figure out what you do teach -- I'll ask again, can a woman who has short hair be saved?

If it is short due to being cut, having a homosexual spirit, then no.

I don't know why you keep tossing out this "homosexual spirit" thing, but is that the limiter? That any woman who cuts her hair does so because she's a homosexual, or has homosexual urges? That's irrational, but you seem to be saying that no woman can cut her hair and be saved, and the reason is that homosexuals cannot be saved. Is that it?

If due to having cancer and it falling out, then yes.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you have a special dispensation for women with cancer.

I suppose that means most women eventually turn gay...

Because most women eventually cut their hair short as they get older...

I work with Seniors... and I've only seen maybe 2 or 3 individuals (women) that have long hair...

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

I'm beginning to see the shadow of a possibility that there might be the beginnings of a fragile bridge between us. Of course, I'm only seeing through a heavy fog, so I might be mistaken. Please don't foul it up for me.

If it is short due to being cut, having a homosexual spirit, then no. If due to having cancer and it falling out, then yes.

It is not exactly the length of the hair, but whether it has been cut. It is also not the action of cutting, but the spirit behind the cutting that condemns.

As I and NOTurTypical said in a previous post, It is what comes from a person's heart that defiles them.

To repeat what I think is your position, the length of a woman's hair is irrelevant, it is the spirit (evil or holy) which she obeyed to make her hair that length that makes the difference. Wonderful, thank you, the bridge is taking shape.

I assume that we can follow the same logic when it comes to the choice of dress or jewelry. Dress and jewelry are irrelevant, it's the spirit behind it that makes the difference.

AN IMPORTANT STORY

Now, let me tell you an entirely fictitious story, which I expect has happened several times.

In a small town in China there exists a small underground church movement. They meet secretly and in fear to avoid detection. They have reason to, because the Central Committee has planted an informer, a traitor in their midst. The informer dutifully sends in his reports and they're always the same "Five people attending, a lot of praying, no obvious threat."

One day, the town's leading businessman, a most respected figure, finds out about the underground church, and is invited to the meeting, where he is given the most basic briefing on how the church operates, it's signals, and a bare bones catechism about Christ and salvation. The businessman is clearly enthused, saying he can't wait for the next meeting when he can enter more fully into the Christian life.

The informer's report this time is much different: "Danger! Immediate Danger! If this man is brought into the church, the whole town may follow him and throw this district into an uproar. Danger!" The Central Committee does what Central Committees do best, that is send an armed squad to put down the trouble.

Five minutes after the service begins, they burst through the doors, arrest everybody, and drag the businessman away where he is tortured and questioned. Finally, the guards give him an either-or. Either publicly renounce Christ, or publicly get shot.

The businessman stands up in front of the assembled town, says "I will always follow Christ, and you should too." He is then promptly shot and killed.

I will always believe that this man is placed into the Express Lane at Heaven's Door, and conducted into God's presence. There, God gives him a slap on the back and invites him to fill out a foursome on the Heavenly golf course, with St. Peter and the Holy Spirit.

No, he was never baptised. Not in Jesus' name or anyone else's. I will not, can not, believe that he is denied an eternity with God.

Has the bridge been built?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


It is a very sad story. I would like to say yes, but I am limited to the words of Jesus...

John 3:5-7 KJV
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

Thank you very much for such a clear, honest, yet painful answer.

For the first time in my life I can see why some people say "God is so unjust, I could never accept Him. I hate Him."

You've almost made me an Atheist.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
For the first time in my life I can see why some people say "God is so unjust, I could never accept Him. I hate Him."

You've almost made me an Atheist.

Fortunately, the irrational basis of his theology is evidence of the fact that his group worships a different god than the one described in the Bible.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by charles1952
For the first time in my life I can see why some people say "God is so unjust, I could never accept Him. I hate Him."

You've almost made me an Atheist.

Fortunately, the irrational basis of his theology is evidence of the fact that his group worships a different god than the one described in the Bible.

The words I quoted were from Jesus, the one and only God of the Bible.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by charles1952
For the first time in my life I can see why some people say "God is so unjust, I could never accept Him. I hate Him."

You've almost made me an Atheist.

Fortunately, the irrational basis of his theology is evidence of the fact that his group worships a different god than the one described in the Bible.

The words I quoted were from Jesus, the one and only God of the Bible.

... and if John 3:5-7 was the whole of the Bible, you might convince me that your god of cruelty and indifference was valid.

Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it. (Luke 18:16-17 NIV)

According to that, the kingdom of God belongs to little children, whom you say cannot be baptized.

A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”

“All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” (Luke 18:18-27 NIV)

Here, Jesus lays out exactly what the man had to do to enter the kingdom of God, and there's not one peep about needing to be baptized.

The passage that you cited is not about baptism, anyway.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
So in context of the earlier comment, what exactly did Jesus tell His followers in Matthew 28:19?

That repentance and remission of sins be preached in His name.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And I never said they disobeyed Jesus. As has been pointed out earlier, "in the Name of" means in/under the authority of.

edit on 30-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

However, the name was spoken over the person to show in whose authority the person was being baptized into. The Bible and writings of the early Christians show us that the name was spoken at baptism.

Specifically, what did Jesus say about baptism in Matthew 28:19?

You know, just for kicks let's try to stay in context.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

You seem to be stuck in the opinion that we teach long hair makes a woman holy. We do not teach that.

Have you ever heard of the "inversion principle" in logic? When you try and make the argument that women with short hair are unholy, you indirectly assert by the principle of inversion that women with long hair are holy.

That logic is incorrect. If a cookie looks bad on the outside, it is because it is also bad on the inside. A cookie that looks good on the outside, can be either good or bad on the inside.

What are you talking about with cookies? And Google the inversion principle. It's basic logic

Originally posted by adjensen

According to that, the kingdom of God belongs to little children, whom you say cannot be baptized.

Children who are too young to have faith, don't have need of baptism. They are innocent.

Originally posted by adjensen

Here, Jesus lays out exactly what the man had to do to enter the kingdom of God, and there's not one peep about needing to be baptized.

Incorrect. Jesus told the man to sell all that he had and then come follow Him. He did not say that was all he had to do to be saved.

Originally posted by adjensen

The passage that you cited is not about baptism, anyway.

The apostles understood it to be about water baptism and Spirit baptism. That is why Peter preached his Acts 2:38 message.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
So in context of the earlier comment, what exactly did Jesus tell His followers in Matthew 28:19?

That repentance and remission of sins be preached in His name.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And I never said they disobeyed Jesus. As has been pointed out earlier, "in the Name of" means in/under the authority of.

edit on 30-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

However, the name was spoken over the person to show in whose authority the person was being baptized into. The Bible and writings of the early Christians show us that the name was spoken at baptism.

Specifically, what did Jesus say about baptism in Matthew 28:19?

You know, just for kicks let's try to stay in context.

That repentance and remission of sins be preached in His name.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

You seem to be stuck in the opinion that we teach long hair makes a woman holy. We do not teach that.

Have you ever heard of the "inversion principle" in logic? When you try and make the argument that women with short hair are unholy, you indirectly assert by the principle of inversion that women with long hair are holy.

That logic is incorrect. If a cookie looks bad on the outside, it is because it is also bad on the inside. A cookie that looks good on the outside, can be either good or bad on the inside.

What are you talking about with cookies? And Google the inversion principle. It's basic logic

Can you provide Scripture for this "principle"? I don't consider Google to be God's word.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by truejew

 

Dear truejew,

Thank you very much for such a clear, honest, yet painful answer.

For the first time in my life I can see why some people say "God is so unjust, I could never accept Him. I hate Him."

You've almost made me an Atheist.

With respect,
Charles1952

I am sorry to hear that. God is just. He has provided a way to be saved through the new birth. It is sad that the man in your story died without being born again, but this message has been preached for around two thousand years and in all nations. There is no excuse for any one to miss out.

reply to post by truejew

The apostles understood it to be about water baptism and Spirit baptism. That is why Peter preached his Acts 2:38 message.

Where does it say that Acts 2:38 is predicated on the passage in Matthew that isn't about baptism? Saying "The apostles understood it" is both baseless and presumptuous.