Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

and this is the response I expected. I disagree with people all the time in school, business, marketplace, and they disagree with me. We do not have to disagree and suddenly drop our standards to heathen standards of civility. You can disagree all you want and I will be glad to talk with you about it. I do think our posts can create a persona even if we intend it to or not.

Then don't do the idiotic, bottom-feeder, "bitter" thing when it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever to the discussion.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Those are loaded and greatly accusatory words and I take offense.

Originally Posted by notofworks

Then don't do the idiotic, bottom-feeder, "bitter" thing when it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever to the discussion.

I see you "take" about as much offense as you "give" .

just sayin

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by scotty

I see you "take" about as much offense as you "give" .

just sayin

Thanks for "Just sayin'".










"Liar" is in a completely different category in case you haven't read the bible.

[SteppingStone]

Originally Posted by Sam

1913 is usually the date used for people starting to baptize using the name of Jesus.

If the only baptism which is valid according to the Bible is done with the name "Jesus" vocalized, we really don't have any record of that being done in an unbroken chain for about 1900 years until 1910 or 1913.

Really? Can you explain these quotes to me and then click on the link and explain the countless other comments noted?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"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 Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are
not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early
book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered
Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew.
Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "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." That "Name" is Jesus.

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "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." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19
therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was
rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few
know about these historical facts.

And many others:

http://www.fulfilledprophecy.net/fil..._28_v19_1_.pdf

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by notofworks

••I think Baron's point...although I can't speak for him....is that it's difficult to trust a person who has an absolute set of values, then goes to an educational system, and then retains every single element of those values. It's like this: 1) I have values with nothing to back it up; 2) I'll get a degree to validate those values; 3) The degree has nothing to do with those values but the appearance is the values are based on the degree when, in reality, they're not at all.

NEWSFLASH!! There are many who have pursued degrees AFTER their ministries began, saw the light of the true message of grace and the gospel, but continued preaching what they were preaching in order to retain their position. Shocking but true.

Baron draws from the positive example of Dan Segraves, who was a renowned bible teacher and bible scholar. After deeper seminary training, he adjusted portions of those values because of greater enlightenment. It's what a person free of pride does.

To say that one held to every single element of his core belief system even after receiving intense training smacks of stubbornness.

Thanks NOW you understood and articulated my point perfectly.

Your such a wise man.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Mizpeh is right, some of you guys are venting and seem a little "bitter" or etc. Don't know you either but that's the feeling I get from your posts. Bernard isn't debating, he is lecturing on the Oneness of God with panel Q n A afterwards. The debate is taking place, at night, in a different location between Roger Perkins and Bruce Reeves.

You guys are all welcome to attend. Baron I will be up in CT doing a debate. I will let you know the dates. Love to meet you in person.

CT?? That's a bit far but perhaps if you are closer at some point.

I Not bitter at all. I have not found that Bernard has offered much of anything in terms Oneness scholarship. His own peers privately reject much of what he holds to and some have challenged him privately but he continues on with no change whatsoever.

He reminds me of the old style negotiators whose only position is that everyone must agree with them or there can be no agreement. I have in my possession emails that he wrote declaring the views of the PCI to be not only the minority view throughout the life of the UPC (doubtful at best) but that a person who hold that view would have a hard time ministering in the UPC today. He has worked very hard to push the PCI view down even to the point of misinformation.

I am not bitter, I just find that he would rather rewrite history than face it honestly.

[SteppingStone]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

CT?? That's a bit far but perhaps if you are closer at some point.

I Not bitter at all. I have not found that Bernard has offered much of anything in terms Oneness scholarship. His own peers privately reject much of what he holds to and some have challenged him privately but he continues on with no change whatsoever.

He reminds me of the old style negotiators whose only position is that everyone must agree with them or there can be no agreement. I have in my possession emails that he wrote declaring the views of the PCI to be not only the minority view throughout the life of the UPC (doubtful at best) but that a person who hold that view would have a hard time ministering in the UPC today. He has worked very hard to push the PCI view down even to the point of misinformation.

I am not bitter, I just find that he would rather rewrite history than face it honestly.

Copy and paste it here or don't mention it...

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by SteppingStone

Copy and paste it here or don't mention it...

I will mention it, and I have no obligation to post it.

However, the exact quotes I referenced from the email are contained below.

"It would be difficult for a preacher to have an active ministry in the UPCI if he were to deny that water baptism and Spirit baptism are part of New Testament salvation, even if he affirmed that these experiences were good."


"It indisputable that a minority of Oneness ministers in the UPC and outside the UPC have believed that the new birth occurs at repentance only. However, this view has indeed been a minority. Within the UPC it is lessening, although it may be increasing outside the UPC. Moreover, from the beginning, most leaders of the movement as well as the major organizations have taught that Acts 2:38 is the complete salvation experience of the New Testament."

[SteppingStone]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I will mention it, and I have no obligation to post it.

However, the exact quotes I referenced from the email are contained below.

"It would be difficult for a preacher to have an active ministry in the UPCI if he were to deny that water baptism and Spirit baptism are part of New Testament salvation, even if he affirmed that these experiences were good."


"It indisputable that a minority of Oneness ministers in the UPC and outside the UPC have believed that the new birth occurs at repentance only. However, this view has indeed been a minority. Within the UPC it is lessening, although it may be increasing outside the UPC. Moreover, from the beginning, most leaders of the movement as well as the major organizations have taught that Acts 2:38 is the complete salvation experience of the New Testament."

Well then it comes across as hear say and that you are back biting or being a busy body..

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by SteppingStone

Well then it comes across as hear say and that you are back biting or being a busy body..

Hearsay is testimony that is given to prove the truth of the matter asserted, without any of the exception applying, and there are plenty.

It is a legal term and does not apply to the general situation of repeating what someone said. There are many cases in court where people do give their account of what someone else said. As long as it is not testimony intended to prove the truth of the matter asserted. An example would be, the witness said, "Joe said 'I am going to kill him'" this is valid to show state of mind but not valid as proof that Joe killed someone.