Go to page [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] ... [ 14 ]
» Previous Page
» Next Page
|
|
Author
|
Message
|
|
|
|
|
"Protestants: can you help us Catholics out? We don't believe that Scripture 'stands alone' because Scripture itself does not make this claim, it is Protestant tradition. Can we please charitably discuss this issue?"- originally posted by Steven (but being deleted from it's original thread). |
|
|
|
|
Gerry wrote:
John wrote:
Gerry,
That doesn't mean that Onesiphorus was dead. You're assuming that to try and prove a weak point. He could have very well been either ill, or quite possibly
imprisoned and awaiting martyrdom. Hence asking for mercy "in that day".
And it doesn't meant that he wasn't, now does it.? Your assuming he was alive to prove a weak point.
The difference is that I'm not the one trying to build a doctrine of praying for the dead based on a verse which doesn't even say that he was dead. Oh wait...I know you're response (Gerry-ism): "But it doesn't say that he was NOT dead either."
|
|
|
|
|
|
John you said " The difference is that I'm not the one trying to build a doctrine of praying for the dead based on a verse which doesn't even say that he was dead. Oh wait...I know you're response (Gerry-ism): "But it doesn't say that he was NOT dead either."
The context clearly implies that he was dead and not still alive and Paul is offering his condolences to the family. In AD 200 Tertullian mentions Onesiphorus in a work called Resurrection of the Flesh Chapter 23 so even way back then they considered him to be dead. We will just have to disagree...again.
One question for you on this John. Onesiphorus was one of the seventy-two disciples appointed by Christ Himself. He obviously accepted Christ as his personal savior. If Paul believed in assurance of salvation, once saved always saved, why is he asking God to have mercy on Onesiphorus? Once you're saved you can't lose it, right? So why ask for mercy from God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is totally off subject but I just got back from camping over night and it was a blast hope you guys have an great holiday. :-) |
|
|
|
|
Gerry,
You mean Tertullian the montanist? That Tertullian?
As for Onesiphorus, it most definitely doesn't give a clear context of him being dead. You see, if there were no other possibility, THEN it would be a clear context. You pray for a family when they have either gone through an ordeal, are currently going through it, or will be going through it. I'm not sure if you realize this, but the NT church was going through persecution by the unsaved Jews as well as by Rome. Did you know that apostles and disciples were imprisoned, beaten, stoned, scourged, and martyred? It's true. They were. When Peter was imprisoned in Acts 12, it says in verse 5: "Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for Him." you see, the NT bears record of live members of the church praying to the living God for other live members of the church. What it doesn't bear record of is any of them praying for the dead. So when you take a verse which says that a family and the individual is being prayed for, without mention of him actually being dead, the "clear" context, based on the above, is that the person is still alive and actively going through an ordeal. To bolster the argument from Scripture even further, it mentions nothing of two of its highest profile figures being prayed for after their deaths (Stephen, with Acts 6 and 7 practically entirely devoted to what happened to him, and James of Zebedee). Gerry, the only thing dead about 2 Timothy 1:16-18 is your argument.
As for your last paragraph, I would only need to answer that if I believed that Onesiphorus was really dead, which I don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
Assume that Onesiphorus was alive. Why does Paul ask God to have mercy on him if Onesiphorus is absolutley assured of salvation as you believe that you are? |
|
|
|
|
Gerry wrote:
Assume that Onesiphorus was alive. Why does Paul ask God to have mercy on him if Onesiphorus is absolutley assured of salvation as you believe that you are?
He's not asking for mercy regarding his salvation. He's asking for mercy regarding what he's going to have to endure (physical suffering). |
|
|
|
|
|
John: Did you know that apostles and disciples were imprisoned, beaten, stoned, scourged, and martyred? It's true. They were.
How do you know this, John? There is no record of this in Scripture (other than James and your example of Peter). We have Stephen, but he was a deacon. What other 'disciples' were martyred? |
|
|
|
|
- Andrew, brother of Peter, was crucified in Edessa.
- Bartholomew was beaten and then crucified in India.
- James the Great, older brother of John, was beheaded in 44 A.D. in Judea.
- James the Less was beaten, stoned, and then clubbed to death at age 94 in Jerusalem.
- Jude, brother of James, was crucified in 72 A.D. in Edessa.
- Luke was hanged on an olive tree in Greece.
- Mark was dragged to death in Alexandria.
- Matthew was killed with a weapon that had a blade and spike in 60 A.D. in Nadabah.
- Matthias was stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem.
- Paul was beheaded with a sword in Rome.
- Peter was crucified head down by request as unworthy to die the same as Christ, in Rome.
- Philip was scourged, imprisoned, and then crucified in 54 A.D. in Heliopolis, Phrygia.
- Simon was crucified in 74 A.D. in Britain.
- Stephen was stoned to death in 34 A.D. in Jerusalem.
- Thomas was thrust through with a spear in India.
Information from http://www.ultimateriddles.com/death-of-apostles-disciples.html and I am unsure of the credability of this site. I have not done much more research on the topic since Jesus told the disciples they would be persecuted and I believe him. |
|
|
|
|
|
I refuse to accept any of this. After all, it is not in the bible. The bible is the final authority.This informatin comes from tradition and not the word of God. All we need to know is in the bible, anything else is to be ignored. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible should be the only sourse when it comes to using scripture but there is historical resources you can choose to use it or not. I'm sure you've learned history without using the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
All of those listed, except for Stephan and James, are from oral tradition. Look at the detail. You have the exact dates and the manner in which they died. In other words, Evewale, you are accepting sources outside of the bible as valid. This is something that a fundamentalist would never accept. This is why they want to reject the writings of the early Church Fathers from the first, second, third and fourth century. Some even call the early Christian writers, heretics, because what they believed is not implicitly in scripture but comes from tradition handed down from the apostles.
I had a fundamentalist tell me he would never make the sign of the cross, as Catholics do, because it is not in the bible, yet the early Christians wrote about making the sign of the cross. Where did this come from if not from the apostles themselves? When Jesus said "baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" it is possible that He made the sign of the cross. We do not know because everything Jesus did is not in the bible.
My point is that to say that the bible is the final authority is not in scripture. To say that all you need is the bible is not in scripture. He never told the apostles to write the New Testament. He never authorized the bible but He did authorize the founding of His Church which scripture calls the pillar and foundation of the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry,
"The Bible is not the final authority" isn't in Scripture either. Now what?
The Bible must therefore be the final authority. |
|
|
|
|
|
Why must the bible be the final authority? Why not the Church? The bible ,as we have it, did not exist for over 300 years. The Church was there from the beginning. The bible came to us from the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth. If christians have a disagreement they take it "to the Church" not the bible. It is the Church with the authority to excommunicate, not the bible. It is the Church, and only the Church, that can infallibly interpret the word of God because only the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. |
|
|
|
|
Acts 17:11 (New International Version)
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
So the Bereans went to Scripture to see if what Paul said was true. Should we also not follow the Bereans example for what they were praised and examine Scripture over the teachings of the church? Or any minister or apostle? |
|
|
|
|
Gerry,
The Gospel message hasn't changed or evolved since the apostolic age. It's still belief and repentance followed by obedience with the outward expression of that faith by believer's baptism as well as observing the Lord's Supper and pleasing Him by our good works of affection towards other men.
That is a picture of the NT church. Which parts do you feel have changed? |
|
» Previous Page
» Next Page
Go to page [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] ... [ 14 ]
|
