Replies

Or, let’s try it the way I’ve been asking you to do. Why waste time running from it?: Where is there a mandate, anywhere in scripture, for the laying on of hands? When it says “Beleive and be baptized, and whoever does not believe is damned,” and again, “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise,” based on the faith only of the Thief, why didn’t Christ make it clear that there was actually a lot MORE hoops to jump through? Is the Thief in hell or is he in heaven? When the Ethiopian walked off rejoicing, why didn’t Luke comment and say “But the Ethiopian shouldn’t have been rejoicing, since his conversion was cut short, contrary to our teachings.” And, where, in scripture, is the doctrine of the laying on of hands actually spelled out? That last one is the most important one. WHAT is the doctrine of the laying on of hands? What does it actually SAY? And, if it is so important, why is there no explicit command to perform it? How come you can’t answer these questions first? I asked them first of you, didn’t I? Why should I respond to you, when I’ve answered you plenty of times already, and you’ve not had the good-will to reciprocate

What I got out of that answer was, yes, traditional Christianity does not practice what Jesus Christ specifically said his followers should do. Further, in order to justify it we'll say it's wrong because "we" believe these verses override it.

Again, I think the best course of action is to ASSUME that Christ was telling the truth when he said it was his doctrine and then study those verses with that understanding.

“Again, I think the best course of action is to ASSUME that Christ was telling the truth when he said it was his doctrine and then study those verses with that understanding.”

So then, since you concede that there is no actual command in scripture to perform them, no explicit mandate, nor can you show me what it is in plain terms from the text, to what scriptures do you wish for us to read “with that understanding?,” when you have nothing whatever that could naturally lead you to your conclusion? It is the scripture which should lead someone to conclude something. You cannot read a pre-existent idea and hope to get the scripture to conform it. Either the scripture bares it out, or it doesn’t. It’s really quite simple.

If what you say is true, then you should be able to legitimately explain why there is no explicit mention of this Eternal-life dependent question, and also explain all the verses which demonstrate an extreme inconsistency with what the Apostles thought was actually important and your claims.

For example, why, again, did the Spirit catch away Philip BEFORE he could lay hands on him, if we are supposed to believe that the early Christians believed, prior, about the laying on of hands being necessary for salvation? Why did the Eunuch walk away rejoicing, and yet Luke does not take the time to assure the followers of the UCG that “But, he got sad later, when he realized he wasn’t a Christian yet, because, as you know, we teach that a person isn’t converted until they are baptized AND laid hands on.”

Why is it that the Thief, who lived a life of horrible sin, is saved with this simple statement: “Remember me, Lord, when you come into your Kingdom”? When your religion teaches that if a person is not baptized, and not laid hands on, he is not actually even become a Christian?

Out of the entire New Testament, SO MUCH is spent on talking about HOW men are saved, and yet there is not one sentence, not one little phrase, not one little suggestion,that says anything that you have said.

Can’t you explain why? Why didn’t Paul, when he was saying “ye are saved by grace,” did he not sit down and say, “But, you can’t have any grace unless you submit to the authority of the UCG, or whatever offshoot cult from Armstrong may pop up 2000 years from now”?