“No, that’s the claim of Jesus and Paul:”
No, it really isn’t the claim of either Jesus or Paul. There is no scripture that says that the Holy Spirit must be given by the “laying on of hands.” That’s just your assumption, reading the “laying on of hands” and connecting it with the claims of your non-Trinitarian church.
“Well since that’s what it says in scripture and what Jesus taught as doctrine and what Paul taught in doctrine”
But the scripture doesn’t say that. Your argument is essentially to take every instance of the “laying on of hands,” and to conclude from thence that it must be required to receive the Spirit, even though not every instance actually supports your views. You do not actually explain all of the scripture, such as, 1) the offering of salvation to any who believe, which is not compatible with your view. 2) The fact that not all those who received the Spirit or were saved had hands laid on them. 3) The fact that signs and wonders accompanied the giving of the Spirit in those days, which is no longer given in our day, and definitely not by the UCG. 4) That the Spirit is said to be sovereign in regeneration, moving as He “listeth” during Christ’s explanation to Nicodemus about the necessity of being born again. 5) The Prevenient action of the Holy Spirit prior to salvation, which is not accomplished through the laying on of hands.
“For example does it say he went to heaven or was saved?”
It says he went to paradise “this day” with Christ. Unless paradise is another word for hell, the Thief is in quite good hands.
Nah, that's the plain reading of the text and the practice of the 1st century church. That's the way it was done except for the two instances of the first gentile Christians and the first jewish Christians receiving his spirit. Unless you were one of those two small groups in scripture there was no other way specified by which the holy spirit is given. You're making assumptions that someone else MUST have gotten it a different way with no evidence whatsoever.
You do not actually explain all of the scripture, such as, 1) the offering of salvation to any who believe, which is not compatible with your view.
That changes nothing to the premise of salvation any who believes. But clearly scripture puts forth the need for obedience but let's not go down that rabbit hole again.
2) The fact that not all those who received the Spirit or were saved had hands laid on them. 3)
We'll disagree because scripture shows that receiving the spirit of God is not equivalent to being saved.
The fact that signs and wonders accompanied the giving of the Spirit in those days,
Signs and wonder were for the early church...to make a statement in world that knew nothing about Christ.
4) That the Spirit is said to be sovereign in regeneration, moving as He “listeth” during Christ’s explanation to Nicodemus about the necessity of being born again.
Don't disagree..without the spirit of God there is no regeneration.
5) The Prevenient action of the Holy Spirit prior to salvation, which is not accomplished through the laying on of hands.
That's true...God works with people before they become believers. This agency is described quite a bit in the old testament but it's a completely different aspect then having the indwelling spirit of the Lord.
It says he went to paradise “this day” with Christ. Unless paradise is another word for hell, the Thief is in quite good hands.
What is paradise?
Speak for yourself.