Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew
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.

What do you mean "if it's true" -- unless you're blind, you can see clearly see that both are true. As I said, those quotes are all over "Oneness" web sites, so it clearly originated from someone who believes what you believe, and felt the need to lie in order to attack Trinitarianism.

The fact that you don't admit to the deceit, and your part in it, is rather telling.

Originally posted by truejew

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.

No I have not. You can't just make arbitrary accusations against someone.

Originally posted by truejew

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.

What are you talking about when you say if its true, he just showed you that the Oneness websites are pushing a fabrication to support a doctrine.

Originally posted by adjensen

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.

That quote is not found in most of the texts of that letter and since Ignatius makes oneness statements throughout his letters, I would say that it has probably been added in.

Originally posted by truejew
I would say that it has probably been added in.

As you are not a scholar, and you have been shown to ignore positive evidence that conflicts with your beliefs, your opinion on the matter is of no consequence.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

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.

No I have not. You can't just make arbitrary accusations against someone.

Yes, you both have. One example is that you both claim that we teach salvation by works alone, when we teach salvation by grace through faith.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
I would say that it has probably been added in.

As you are not a scholar, and you have been shown to ignore positive evidence that conflicts with your beliefs, your opinion on the matter is of no consequence.

An honest person would have to admit that it is at least questionable since it only appears in one of several versions of the letter on that site. Are you an honest person?


Edit to add... The exact numbers is only 1 out of the four versions on the site.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
I would say that it has probably been added in.

As you are not a scholar, and you have been shown to ignore positive evidence that conflicts with your beliefs, your opinion on the matter is of no consequence.

An honest person would have to admit that it is at least questionable since it only appears in one of several versions of the letter on that site.

There are shorter and longer versions of that letter, that is not disputed. The differences between the versions is not simply that passage, so your claim that "someone added the Matthew 28:19 bit" is not a valid statement -- the shorter version may be a condensation of the longer, the longer may be an expansion of the shorter, or they may be two different letters.

As I said, you are not a scholar, so you have no basis to determine which of those three options is most likely, and you've simply chosen the one that supports your beliefs. For that reason, your opinion is of no consequence.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

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.

What are you talking about when you say if its true, he just showed you that the Oneness websites are pushing a fabrication to support a doctrine.

Since I have known trinitarians to use deception before, I do ask that you give me time research this and make up my mind. I am an honest man, if I find what you two say about these two quotes to be true, I will teach against their use.

Originally posted by truejew
Yes, you both have. One example is that you both claim that we teach salvation by works alone, when we teach salvation by grace through faith.

As you noted in your post to Charles yesterday, what you teach is that no amount of faith can save a person who has not been baptized in the name of "gee-zus". As baptism is a work, and you say that absolutely no one who has not been baptized can be saved, your theology is one of salvation by works, and works alone.

Originally posted by truejew
I do ask that you give me time research this and make up my mind. I am an honest man, if I find what you two say about these two quotes to be true, I will teach against their use.

What's to research -- both links that I provided are to digital scans of the texts that you cited. In the first, your cited text does not appear. In the second, Ratzinger's comments are obviously taken out of context and the words "Matthew 28:19" has been inserted.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
I would say that it has probably been added in.

As you are not a scholar, and you have been shown to ignore positive evidence that conflicts with your beliefs, your opinion on the matter is of no consequence.

An honest person would have to admit that it is at least questionable since it only appears in one of several versions of the letter on that site.

There are shorter and longer versions of that letter, that is not disputed. The differences between the versions is not simply that passage, so your claim that "someone added the Matthew 28:19 bit" is not a valid statement -- the shorter version may be a condensation of the longer, the longer may be an expansion of the shorter, or they may be two different letters.

As I said, you are not a scholar, so you have no basis to determine which of those three options is most likely, and you've simply chosen the one that supports your beliefs. For that reason, your opinion is of no consequence.

It appears to me that it is you who has "simply chosen the one that supports your beliefs". The version you chose to post is one of only the four on the site. It contradicts oneness statements made by Ignatius. It contradicts Luke's account. It contradicts what the apostles did. It contradicts Eusebius' quote of Matthew 28:19.

To me, it looks like it has been added in. An honest person would have to admit that it is at least questionable.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Yes, you both have. One example is that you both claim that we teach salvation by works alone, when we teach salvation by grace through faith.

As you noted in your post to Charles yesterday, what you teach is that no amount of faith can save a person who has not been baptized in the name of "gee-zus". As baptism is a work, and you say that absolutely no one who has not been baptized can be saved, your theology is one of salvation by works, and works alone.

You can not have faith without baptism. Faith without works is dead. However, it is the faith in being baptized through which we receive salvation. You should stop lying about us.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
I do ask that you give me time research this and make up my mind. I am an honest man, if I find what you two say about these two quotes to be true, I will teach against their use.

What's to research -- both links that I provided are to digital scans of the texts that you cited. In the first, your cited text does not appear. In the second, Ratzinger's comments are obviously taken out of context and the words "Matthew 28:19" has been inserted.

Give me time to examine your info and sources please.

Originally posted by truejew
It appears to me that it is you who has "simply chosen the one that supports your beliefs".

I didn't "choose" any of them -- as I said, there are reasonable explainations for two different versions of that letter, and I have seen no evidence that makes me side with one or the other (or with the view that both are legitimate.) What I said is that your opinion is of no consequence, because you are not a credible source of information on that text.

Ignatius was not "Oneness" -- his writings are in harmony with Trinitarianism.

To me, it looks like it has been added in.

As I said, your opinion is of no matter, highlighted by the fact that there are other differences between the longer and shorter versions, so the reference to Matthew 28:19 was obviously not "added in" by itself.

You can not have faith without baptism.

Of course you can.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

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.

No I have not. You can't just make arbitrary accusations against someone.

Yes, you both have. One example is that you both claim that we teach salvation by works alone, when we teach salvation by grace through faith.

No, I've said your position on soeteriology is salvation by grace + works.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

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.

What are you talking about when you say if its true, he just showed you that the Oneness websites are pushing a fabrication to support a doctrine.

Since I have known trinitarians to use deception before, I do ask that you give me time research this and make up my mind. I am an honest man, if I find what you two say about these two quotes to be true, I will teach against their use.

And I would commend you in that regard.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Yes, you both have. One example is that you both claim that we teach salvation by works alone, when we teach salvation by grace through faith.

As you noted in your post to Charles yesterday, what you teach is that no amount of faith can save a person who has not been baptized in the name of "gee-zus". As baptism is a work, and you say that absolutely no one who has not been baptized can be saved, your theology is one of salvation by works, and works alone.

You can not have faith without baptism. Faith without works is dead. However, it is the faith in being baptized through which we receive salvation. You should stop lying about us.

The thief on the cross had faith without baptism.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

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.

No I have not. You can't just make arbitrary accusations against someone.

Yes, you both have. One example is that you both claim that we teach salvation by works alone, when we teach salvation by grace through faith.

No, I've said your position on soeteriology is salvation by grace + works.

edit on 31-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Your view of what we teach is actually closer to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Catholics teach that salvation is by grace + baptism whether it is done in faith or without faith. In their view an infant or other person can get baptized without faith and their baptism still saves them. Making many of their baptisms a faithless work.

We do not teach that grace + the work of baptism saves by itself. We teach that grace through faith in repenting, being baptized, and receiving the Holy Spirit saves. In our view it is the faith that saves. A person who gets baptized without faith, does not have salvation. Which is what the Bible teaches.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Yes, you both have. One example is that you both claim that we teach salvation by works alone, when we teach salvation by grace through faith.

As you noted in your post to Charles yesterday, what you teach is that no amount of faith can save a person who has not been baptized in the name of "gee-zus". As baptism is a work, and you say that absolutely no one who has not been baptized can be saved, your theology is one of salvation by works, and works alone.

You can not have faith without baptism. Faith without works is dead. However, it is the faith in being baptized through which we receive salvation. You should stop lying about us.

The thief on the cross had faith without baptism.

The thief died before baptism in the name of Christ for the remission of sins, which began on the following day of Pentecost.