Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by truejew


Now you're purposely being deceptive. What did Jesus say about baptism in Matthew 28:19? What method or formula did He command His followers to partake of and teach?

Originally posted by truejew

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.

Who said it was. The entire Bible is truth, but not every truth is contained in the Bible.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

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.

Who said it was. The entire Bible is truth, but not every truth is contained in the Bible.

You are coming along NTT, you'll be fine at the "awakening." You just explained why Sola Scriptura is heresy.
It came from Martin Luther's head not God.

Originally posted by adjensen
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.

What verse in Matthew are you speaking of? I thought we were speaking of John 3 and being born again.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Now you're purposely being deceptive. What did Jesus say about baptism in Matthew 28:19? What method or formula did He command His followers to partake of and teach?

I am not being deceptive. According to Luke, that is what Jesus said. The formula He commanded was in "His name", the name of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

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.

Who said it was. The entire Bible is truth, but not every truth is contained in the Bible.

What you speak of is man made. It was not taught to us by God. This "principle" is not infallible, especially if your claim that my teaching contradicts it, was true.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Now you're purposely being deceptive. What did Jesus say about baptism in Matthew 28:19? What method or formula did He command His followers to partake of and teach?

I am not being deceptive. According to Luke, that is what Jesus said. The formula He commanded was in "His name", the name of Jesus Christ.

.
You are lying. In Matthew 28:19 he tells His disciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You are being deceptive because you refuse to acknowledge it says that.

reply to post by truejew


Is Calculus false?

It was not taught to us by God.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Now you're purposely being deceptive. What did Jesus say about baptism in Matthew 28:19? What method or formula did He command His followers to partake of and teach?

I am not being deceptive. According to Luke, that is what Jesus said. The formula He commanded was in "His name", the name of Jesus Christ.

.
You are lying. In Matthew 28:19 he tells His disciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You are being deceptive because you refuse to acknowledge it says that.

I am not lying. Luke's account of what Jesus said is different from the account of Matthew that we have in most Bibles today. The actions of the apostles match Luke's account. Many scholars claim that the Matthew account as it reads in most Bibles today is questionable. It has been admitted by a Catholic source that the baptism formula was changed by the Catholic Church. The previous pope even said that the Matthew account came from Rome.

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.

- The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263

The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.

- Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Eusebius quoted Matthew 28:19 as, "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Is Calculus false?

It was not taught to us by God.

I don't know. Does it contradict my teaching, which is the same as Scripture teaches?

reply to post by truejew


Scripture doesn't teach what you claimed, that's just legalism.

Originally posted by truejew

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.

- The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263

You know what's funny about that quote, TrueJew? It seems authentic, and fairly well supportive of your point. The fact that it is an old book, with page cite, lends it credibility. After all, who has the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia to look it up?

Well, it turns out that someone had one, and scanned it in. Catholic Encyclopedia, page 263, entry on baptism. Does your text appear on that page? No, it does not.

It does, in fact, say this:

it is also obligatory to mention the separate persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church.

I hope that you demonstrate the "fruits of the spirit" in never posting that patently false citation again, and discourage your fellow anti-Trinitarians from doing so, as well.

The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.

- Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

And, oopsies, we have another problem here, because that isn't what Cardinal Ratzinger actually said.

It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Source)

Ratzinger is talking about the Creed, not scripture, and not baptism. The Nicene Creed is the profession of faith, which was indeed developed in the second and third centuries, and which was composed in Rome.

Once again, I hope that you will display the "fruits of the spirit" in no longer taking Cardinal Ratzinger's comments completely out of context, and misrepresenting what he actually said, which was an absolute validation of Matthew 28:19.

reply to post by adjensen


Blatant deception yet again? No you don't say!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Blatant deception yet again? No you don't say!

You know, I don't fault him for posting it, because non-critical thinkers don't bother checking sources, but whoever first came up with those quotes (you'll find them all over "Oneness" websites) intentionally lied about them, which I find to be truly appalling. Someone who claims to be a follower of Christ deliberately falsified statements in an effort to discredit another religion, knowing full well that those words did not appear in the encyclopedia, and that Ratzinger specifically said he was talking about the Creed, so they removed those words and inserted "Matthew 28:19" to falsely claim that he was talking about that.

TrueJew can show the "fruits of the spirit" by not promoting lies such as that, now that he knows the truth, but I have to wonder about the "fruits of the spirit" of Apostolic Oneness that prompted the lies in the first place.

reply to post by adjensen


If someone or group needs to deliberately lie to support a doctrine that's evil. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Scripture doesn't teach what you claimed, that's just legalism.

Which claim do you speak of?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.

- The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263

You know what's funny about that quote, TrueJew? It seems authentic, and fairly well supportive of your point. The fact that it is an old book, with page cite, lends it credibility. After all, who has the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia to look it up?

Well, it turns out that someone had one, and scanned it in. Catholic Encyclopedia, page 263, entry on baptism. Does your text appear on that page? No, it does not.

It does, in fact, say this:

it is also obligatory to mention the separate persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church.

I hope that you demonstrate the "fruits of the spirit" in never posting that patently false citation again, and discourage your fellow anti-Trinitarians from doing so, as well.

The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.

- Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

And, oopsies, we have another problem here, because that isn't what Cardinal Ratzinger actually said.

It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Source)

Ratzinger is talking about the Creed, not scripture, and not baptism. The Nicene Creed is the profession of faith, which was indeed developed in the second and third centuries, and which was composed in Rome.

Once again, I hope that you will display the "fruits of the spirit" in no longer taking Cardinal Ratzinger's comments completely out of context, and misrepresenting what he actually said, which was an absolute validation of Matthew 28:19.

No response to Eusebius' quote?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Blatant deception yet again? No you don't say!

Many trinitarians use deception against us too.

If what Adjensen says about those two quotes is true, then I would hope it was some how by accident, if not then the person who originally gave the quotes is intending to use deception. We (Apostolics) have enough evidence of our faith that we do not need to lower ourselves to the level of trinitarians.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

If someone or group needs to deliberately lie to support a doctrine that's evil. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

I have seen you and Adjensen lie about what we believe and continue to do so after being corrected. How is that any different.

Originally posted by truejew
No response to Eusebius' quote?

What, showing your lies in the other two examples wasn't enough?

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians pre-dates Eusebius by 200 years or so, and quotes Matthew 28:19 as it is now, so I don't think Eusebius is of import.