Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by adjensen

I criticize your beliefs, it's your problem if you take that criticism as an insult.

The same could be said of you and Lonewolf's comments.

Although you do do more than criticize beliefs. You also slander the people.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I criticize your beliefs, it's your problem if you take that criticism as an insult.

The same could be said of you and Lonewolf's comments.

Demonstrating the irrationality of your beliefs is not the same thing, but, regardless, if I took it as an insult, that is, in fact, my problem, though he and I have resolved it politely.

Although you do do more than criticize beliefs. You also slander the people.

I'm not sure that you understand the meaning of the word "slander". Calling Reckart a bigot is not slander when he has made bigoted statements on his blog. Calling him a "hillbilly" is not slander, as he was born in the Appalachian Mountains in West Virginia.

Hillbilly is a term (often derogatory) for people who dwell in rural, mountainous areas of the United States, primarily Appalachia but also the Ozarks. (Source)

You might think that I'm mean, and you're probably right, but I don't lie about people.

Originally posted by adjensen

I'm not sure that you understand the meaning of the word "slander". Calling Reckart a bigot is not slander when he has made bigoted statements on his blog. Calling him a "hillbilly" is not slander, as he was born in the Appalachian Mountains in West Virginia.

Saying that I am involved in witchcraft when I am not and making me equal to a Nazi when I hate the evils committed by them, is slander.

Originally posted by adjensen

Hillbilly is a term (often derogatory) for people who dwell in rural, mountainous areas of the United States, primarily Appalachia but also the Ozarks. (Source)

You might think that I'm mean, and you're probably right, but I don't lie about people.

Once again you reveal yourself to be a hypocrite. Falsely accusing others of being a bigot while you make bigoted comments.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by colbe

 

Protestants REJECT Christ's presence in the Eucharist because you all cannot confect it.

As I noted earlier, not all Protestants reject it, they just view it differently -- Lutherans, for example, believe in Consubstantiation, rather than Transubstantiation, that Christ is present, but that the bread and wine are also present, and that unused bread and wine no longer has Christ's presence. Anglicans vary from those who have a Catholic view (Transubstantiation) to those that have a Reformed view (essentially, that Christ is "around", in spirit, but has nothing to do with the actual elements.) The Methodists kind of throw up their hands and say "he's there, we're not sure how."

So it's a diverse landscape, Colbe, don't make the assumption that all Protestants are of the same mind (on this, or any other issue, lol.)

Adjensen, my point,

It doesn't matter their "view", nothing happens. Protestants have no valid priesthood.

Diversity, ecumensim accomplishes nothing. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. And God is going to personally show the entire world soon, prophecy says so. What a time we live in.... We have to keep sharing about the Eucharist. Non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians will recall when the time comes. Think how in love Protestants are with the written Word, wait until they realize the fullness.


you are dear and I am not,


colbe

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by colbe

 

Protestants REJECT Christ's presence in the Eucharist because you all cannot confect it.

As I noted earlier, not all Protestants reject it, they just view it differently -- Lutherans, for example, believe in Consubstantiation, rather than Transubstantiation, that Christ is present, but that the bread and wine are also present, and that unused bread and wine no longer has Christ's presence. Anglicans vary from those who have a Catholic view (Transubstantiation) to those that have a Reformed view (essentially, that Christ is "around", in spirit, but has nothing to do with the actual elements.) The Methodists kind of throw up their hands and say "he's there, we're not sure how."

So it's a diverse landscape, Colbe, don't make the assumption that all Protestants are of the same mind (on this, or any other issue, lol.)

Amen~! Sadly.....

It is pride, we all have pride but I can't understand how our brothers and sisters can ignore their division and the lack of desire to check the first Christian's beliefs? The heresy of "Private Judgment" of the written Word plus one can take any verse out context and make it mean what you wish...

Instead, Protestants should look a the men taught by the Apostles, their quotes.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I'm not sure that you understand the meaning of the word "slander". Calling Reckart a bigot is not slander when he has made bigoted statements on his blog. Calling him a "hillbilly" is not slander, as he was born in the Appalachian Mountains in West Virginia.

Saying that I am involved in witchcraft when I am not and making me equal to a Nazi when I hate the evils committed by them, is slander.

I believe that, once again, you need to work on your reading comprehension. My memory is that I referred to your claims, that words have to be pronounced in a specific fashion and acts have to be done in a specific manner or else God ignores you, as being "magic spells and incantations" and your cult practices being, in essence, a form of "Christian witchcraft". Given that the definition of magic/witchcraft is essentially the belief that words and actions, done correctly, control the supernatural, my description of your beliefs is appropriate.

As for the Nazi reference, I didn't call you a Nazi, I said that this statement of yours:

The Congregation of the wicked (synogogue of satan) crucified Christ.

was reminiscent of statements made by the Nazis to justify the killing of "Christ killer Jews".

Hillbilly is a term (often derogatory) for people who dwell in rural, mountainous areas of the United States, primarily Appalachia but also the Ozarks. (Source)

You might think that I'm mean, and you're probably right, but I don't lie about people.

Once again you reveal yourself to be a hypocrite. Falsely accusing others of being a bigot while you make bigoted comments.

How am I falsely accusing Reckart of being a bigot? He still has that bigoted statement up on his blog.

And where am I being a bigot? I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word:

bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race (Source)

Just because I think your theology is stupid doesn't mean that I don't tolerate it, or you. As I've said numerous times, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, but you're not welcome to your own personal set of facts to back up an invalid theology.

I'm an apologist, not an evangelist -- I don't really care what you do or don't believe. If you didn't post anti-Christian heresy I would likely ignore you, but you constantly insist on interjecting your nonsensical beliefs into threads in which I participate, and that's why I respond to you.

reply to post by adjensen


Calling on the name of the Lord is Biblical and not witchcraft. Your own Catholic faith rejects any baptism where the words Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and baptize are not included. Therefore you are a slanderer and hypocrite.

My words about the Pharisees are the truth as recorded in Scripture. Your claim that that makes me a Nazi, is slander.

Further your name calling of Pastor Reckart ("hillbilly pastor") and also of sinners ("jerkwads") shows that you are the real bigot here.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Calling on the name of the Lord is Biblical and not witchcraft.

I never said your problem was "calling on the name of the Lord", rather it is your insistence that you have to use his name in English, or he won't know that you're calling on him.

Your own Catholic faith rejects any baptism where the words Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and baptize are not included.

Actually, what it rejects are invalid baptisms. Yours is rejected by the church because it was taken in a manner to intentionally reject the trinity, rendering it invalid.

Therefore you are a slanderer and hypocrite.

Once again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of those words. And, as I have said numerous times here, I am not personally of the belief that baptism does anything to anybody, so what the Roman Catholic church has to say about it doesn't really matter.

My words about the Pharisees are the truth as recorded in Scripture. Your claim that that makes me a Nazi, is slander.

Once again, I did not call you a Nazi. How many times does that have to be repeated?

Further your name calling of Pastor Reckart ("hillbilly pastor") and also of sinners ("jerkwads") shows that you are the real bigot here.

Reckart IS a hillbilly pastor, by the definition of those words, and by where he was born and raised. You apparently don't like that, but telling the truth isn't slander and you can't be bigoted towards a single individual -- the term is in regards to groups of people, like Reckart's bigoted remarks toward the Jews, and his expressed hatred towards the UPC, Trinitarians, and pretty much everyone who disagrees with him.

We can all see that you are highly agitated by words, syllables and letters, lack evidence for most claims you make, and don't take criticism well. Until you address those issues, you should probably reconsider your chosen task of being an evangelist for your little group.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Okay, who was the prince in 70AD?? History records nothing about an Arab prince in Jerusalem in 70 AD.Titus Vespasian was neither a prince or an Arab.

The title of prince was referring to his position as leader of his people. I do not see anything that says that the prince would be Arab.

No, a prince is a prince. Leaders are called Kings by the Holy Spirit in scripture. And he must be an Arab because the Roman legions who laid siege in Jerusalem and burned the temple were Arab-Roman legions. The Emperor didn't march 4 legions to Jerusalem from Rome.

The Hebrew that is translated as "prince" is Strong's #5057 and means "commander".

Can you show Scripture for this prince being Arab?

Daniel 9:26 says it's the "people" of the "prince that shall come". (He can be a commander if you want him to, he will have a 10 nation empire he will lead.). The people who destroyed the temple and the city in 70 AD were Arabs.

Historian Accounts:

"So Vespasian sent his son Titus [who], came by land into Syria, where he gathered together the Roman forces, with a considerable number of auxiliaries from the kings in that neighborhood" (Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book III, Chapter 1, Paragraph 3).

"Malchus also, the king of Arabia, sent a thousand horsemen, besides five thousand footmen, the greatest part of which were archers; so that the whole army, including the auxiliaries sent by the kings, as well horsemen and footmen, when all were united together, amounted to sixty thousand" (Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book III, Chapter 4, Paragraph 20).

Most all of they Roman soldiers were Syrians and Turks that were garrisoned around Israel in 70 AD. Which fits with some of the titles of the Antichrist which are "king of Babylon" (Iraq), "Prince of Persia" (Iran), "King of Tyre" (Lebanon", and "The Assyrian" (Syria). Have you ever looked at the modern countries that correlate with the nations listed in Joel chapter 2? That's a prophecy listing the 10 nations Christ will destroy in judgment when He returns to battle the Antichrist. See a theme here?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I never said your problem was "calling on the name of the Lord", rather it is your insistence that you have to use his name in English, or he won't know that you're calling on him.

We can add lying about what we teach to the list.

Originally posted by adjensen

Actually, what it rejects are invalid baptisms. Yours is rejected by the church because it was taken in a manner to intentionally reject the trinity, rendering it invalid.

The Catholic Church calls any baptism without the words Father, Son, Holy Spirit/Ghost, and baptize invalid. The same as us saying any baptism not in Jesus name is invalid. If our teaching is "magic" as you falsely accuse, then Catholics would be guilty of the same. Of course we could also add your teaching that a priest turns crackers and wine into blood and flesh and the calling upon dead people to your list.

Originally posted by adjensen
Reckart IS a hillbilly pastor, by the definition of those words, and by where he was born and raised. You apparently don't like that, but telling the truth isn't slander and you can't be bigoted towards a single individual -- the term is in regards to groups of people, like Reckart's bigoted remarks toward the Jews, and his expressed hatred towards the UPC, Trinitarians, and pretty much everyone who disagrees with him.

You are bigoted towards people born in those two areas and against Christian Jews.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It does not say that in the Septuagint, which Jesus quoted from.

Daniel9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It does not say that in the Septuagint, which Jesus quoted from.

Daniel9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

I don't see how it matters what version Christ quoted from, it matters what Daniel wrote in the original. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew original.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I never said your problem was "calling on the name of the Lord", rather it is your insistence that you have to use his name in English, or he won't know that you're calling on him.

We can add lying about what we teach to the list.

Hey, it's you that said it, not me:

Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him. (Source)

That was you, saying that you "have to use his name in English, or he won't know that you're calling on him", back in February.

The Catholic Church calls any baptism without the words Father, Son, Holy Spirit/Ghost, and baptize invalid.

Incorrect. What matters is not the pronunciation of the words, but the intent behind the words. You have said in the past that the intent is not what matters, it is the pronunciation.

For example, this is a proper baptismal formula for the Catholic Church: "Ich taufe dich im Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes." There's no "Father", "Son" or "Holy Spirit" in there, but because the intent is for a Trinitarian baptism, that's what matters.

You are bigoted towards people born in those two areas and against Christian Jews.

No, I am not. As I said before, you don't seem to understand the concept of bigotry.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It does not say that in the Septuagint, which Jesus quoted from.

Daniel9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

I don't see how it matters what version Christ quoted from, it matters what Daniel wrote in the original. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew original.

The Septuagint is the most correct that we have. There are no Hebrew originals.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I never said your problem was "calling on the name of the Lord", rather it is your insistence that you have to use his name in English, or he won't know that you're calling on him.

We can add lying about what we teach to the list.

Hey, it's you that said it, not me:

Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him. (Source)

That was you, saying that you "have to use his name in English, or he won't know that you're calling on him", back in February.

The Catholic Church calls any baptism without the words Father, Son, Holy Spirit/Ghost, and baptize invalid.

Incorrect. What matters is not the pronunciation of the words, but the intent behind the words. You have said in the past that the intent is not what matters, it is the pronunciation.

For example, this is a proper baptismal formula for the Catholic Church: "Ich taufe dich im Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes." There's no "Father", "Son" or "Holy Spirit" in there, but because the intent is for a Trinitarian baptism, that's what matters.

You are bigoted towards people born in those two areas and against Christian Jews.

No, I am not. As I said before, you don't seem to understand the concept of bigotry.

I have never said that the language the name is spoken in or pronunciation is important. I have even corrected you on that several times.

Originally posted by truejew
I have never said that the language the name is spoken in or pronunciation is important. I have even corrected you on that several times.

So are you now rejecting your prior claims that baptisms not done with the name Jesus, pronounced "gee-zus", a pronunciation of the name that did not exist until the English language was formed, are invalid baptisms?

Well, we're making headway, I guess.

Up next, "hot tub baptisms". Valid or not?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It does not say that in the Septuagint, which Jesus quoted from.

Daniel9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

I don't see how it matters what version Christ quoted from, it matters what Daniel wrote in the original. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew original.

The Septuagint is the most correct that we have. There are no Hebrew originals.

Have you never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls before? Daniel didn't speak Greek. Daniel was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
I have never said that the language the name is spoken in or pronunciation is important. I have even corrected you on that several times.

So are you now rejecting your prior claims that baptisms not done with the name Jesus, pronounced "gee-zus", a pronunciation of the name that did not exist until the English language was formed, are invalid baptisms?

Well, we're making headway, I guess.

Up next, "hot tub baptisms". Valid or not?

I am not rejecting any prior claims that I have made, just ones you falsely claim that I've made.

Baptism in Jesus name is a valid baptism. Baptism in the name of Jesous is a valid baptism. Baptism in the name of Jeshas is a valid baptism. They are the same name in different languages

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It does not say that in the Septuagint, which Jesus quoted from.

Daniel9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

I don't see how it matters what version Christ quoted from, it matters what Daniel wrote in the original. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew original.

The Septuagint is the most correct that we have. There are no Hebrew originals.

Have you never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls before? Daniel didn't speak Greek. Daniel was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

If you know about the Dead Sea Scrolls, how can anyone remain Protestant or belong to a non-Trinitarian sect?

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin. Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct.

It is interesting to note that the Palestinian Jews did NOT accept the 7 DC books for their version of Holy Scriptures and neither did they accept any of the New Testament. Unfortunately, the Protestants base their Bible on this version which comes from a people who did not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

Originally posted by truejew
Baptism in Jesus name is a valid baptism. Baptism in the name of Jesous is a valid baptism. Baptism in the name of Jeshas is a valid baptism. They are the same name in different languages

How about baptism in the name of "yay-sue"? That would be Latin and Spanish. Baptism in the name of "yay-shoo-ah"? That would be Hebrew... you know... the language that "gee-zus" spoke.