Make God's path straight by being born again

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
theistgal said:
Alfred, I only have a few minutes, but what about when Moses & Elijah appeared with Christ at the Transfiguration & talked with Him about the things that were going on?  Obviously (a) they were dead AND (b) they knew what was happening here on earth.  So death is not a barrier -even less so now since Christ destroyed the power of Hades!

Gotta go - as you may have noticed it's MUCH cooler today so we're off for a bike ride! :)
Ride to live, live to ride, but I do it on my Yamaha Stratoliner...if you see an ugly guy on a nice bike, it might be me!

The transfiguration was the TELEIOS(complete) breaking into our MEROS(partial) 1 Cor 13:10, the "kingdom of God present with power." So Moses and Elijah weren't in heaven when they talked with Christ, there were here albeit in realm having the dimension of God's revelation:

NKJ  Mark 9:1 And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power."
2 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves; and He was transfigured before them.
3 His clothes became shining, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them.
4 And Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.
5 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah "--
6 because he did not know what to say, for they were greatly afraid.
7 And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!"
8 Suddenly, when they had looked around, they saw no one anymore, but only Jesus with themselves.
(Mar 9:1-8 NKJ)

Hence this event is a proof text AGAINST speaking to the dead as they  had to come to Christ on earth to hear what He had to say.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
bogdan said:
Alfred Persson said:
As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture. Surely you believe there are some on earth today who partake of divine nature. Why do these folks have telephones to talk to each other, if divine energies make them part of a communion of the saints network?
Have you read the New Testament? The Apostles healed people and even raised the dead. People didn't have to pray to them; they were there in the flesh.

(Technically, the people asking the then-living Apostles to help them was an act of prayer. A prayer is simply a request, as in the phrase, "I pray you tell." Also, notice that when asked, the Apostles simply healed people. They didn't say, "No! Don't ask me, idolator! Go pray to God and he'll heal your child.")
You evaded my question...here it is again:

As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture. Surely you believe there are some on earth today who partake of divine nature. Why do these folks have telephones to talk to each other, if divine energies make them part of a communion of the saints network?

I see the apostles doing lots of miracles, communicating with folks not present isn't one of them.

Answer the question please.


 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
recent convert said:
Again the preaching in the tradition of man is given to us divorced from holy tradition by inflating an aspect of heavenly worship within holy tradition counter to its meaning reduced to legalistic, justification of human reasoning. Case in point, "the cloud of witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1 are reduced by individualist rationalization to an obituary listing by opinion that replaces their role within the scripture since it is their witness that assists us to "lay aside every weight and sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith..." (Hebrews 12:1-2 in part).

The tradition of man being preached to us keeps boasting in the scripture that we do not follow scripture which is false and refernces to Calvin for wisdom are poison to us. To expand on the cloud of witness idea, if I was an Ethiopian Orthodox, this concept would be easily Biblically illustrated to me on the basis that the book of Enoch which is in the canon of their church states, "...I saw the habitations and couches of the saints. There my eyes beheld their habitations with the angels, and their couches with the holy ones. They were entreating, supplicating, & praying for the sons of men.." (enoch 39:4). This is the understanding we see within the letter of Hebrews and the roll call given by St. Paul (which includes Enoch) in Hebrews 11 of the faithful witnesses in which the point culminates in Hebrews 12:1. The concept of the many habitations seems most similar to what the Lord says, "In My Father's house are many mansions..."in John 14:2.

Why Enoch is not universal canon, I do not know (it was lost for over 1000 years in many areas) but it was written before & attests to the revelation of the Son of God in many areas & clearly evident within holy tradtion & such attestation expressed in liturgical worship centuries prior to the codification of canon beats guess work of the apostolic faith expressed by a tradtion of man.
A self contradiction, decrying the "tradition of man" you bind yourself to Orthodox tradition, which realized its defects and sought to stabilize itself in the "consensus of the fathers."

Sola scriptura is the antidote for relying upon "the tradition of man," for the Bible is written by God.


.


 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
bogdan said:
So then, why does the ancient Church—people who spoke ancient Koine Greek as their first language and actually experienced the culture and living usage of the word MARTUS—interpret it differently from you? Did your Johnny-come-lately Protestant "church fathers" somehow get enlightened about something that all of Christendom missed out on for 1500 years? We're approaching Joseph Smith territory here.
They have other tradition apart from scripture they pay attention to.

If you follow the text, you must conclude it says nothing about the dead watching and hearing our prayers, and interceding for us.

YOU try to find those words in the context. I looked, they aren't there.


 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
11,985
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Mr. Persson,

Do you happen to agree with the substance of the Nicene Creed? Yes, I think you said you do.

Was it not the "men" of the church who wrote it with consensus inspired by the Holy Spirit? Was not the Bible written by the "men" of the church inspired by the Holy Spirit? And were not the number of those books chosen by the men of the church with consensus inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Regards
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Alfred Persson said:
bogdan said:
Alfred Persson said:
As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture. Surely you believe there are some on earth today who partake of divine nature. Why do these folks have telephones to talk to each other, if divine energies make them part of a communion of the saints network?
Have you read the New Testament? The Apostles healed people and even raised the dead. People didn't have to pray to them; they were there in the flesh.

(Technically, the people asking the then-living Apostles to help them was an act of prayer. A prayer is simply a request, as in the phrase, "I pray you tell." Also, notice that when asked, the Apostles simply healed people. They didn't say, "No! Don't ask me, idolator! Go pray to God and he'll heal your child.")
You evaded my question...here it is again:

As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture.
For someone who has recognized full well the fallacy of arguments from silence, you seem to rely upon these arguments from silence quite a bit in your posts. ::)  If arguments from silence don't work for others, what makes you so special that you think they'll work for you?

Alfred Persson said:
Fabio Leite said:
I will answer if you, who claim to know the fundaments of debates answer this:

is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?
Or in other words, in all unsolved murders, the absence of evidence of the identity of the murderer is evidence that this identity is actually absent (and therefore the murder was committed by a person withouth identity)?
No, an argument from silence is unsound, proves nothing. ...
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
It certainly DOES say Abraham and Israel ARE ignorant of the living:

KJV Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.  
Nope, not at all.  The statement here is the same as St Peter saying "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended." (Matt 26:33)  It is a hypothetical statement.  In this case "Though" means "if" or "suppose".  The Hebrews were relatively agnostic about the afterlife, and made no definitive statements one way or the other.  They had no way of knowing if Abraham or Israel could know anything.

From the parable of the rich man and Lazarus it seems as if Abraham has greater knowledge than you assume from this one text in Isaiah, knowing the deeds of the rich man and Lazarus both.

Regardless, you still don't seem to see the fundamental difference between a hypothetical statement in Isaiah's time and a reality in ours.  The Living God descended into Sheol and set the captives free.  Those who were in the ignorance of death were sent the Divine Truth of Life (I Peter 3:18-20, 4:6)!
 

bogdan

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Alfred Persson said:
bogdan said:
Alfred Persson said:
As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture. Surely you believe there are some on earth today who partake of divine nature. Why do these folks have telephones to talk to each other, if divine energies make them part of a communion of the saints network?
Have you read the New Testament? The Apostles healed people and even raised the dead. People didn't have to pray to them; they were there in the flesh.

(Technically, the people asking the then-living Apostles to help them was an act of prayer. A prayer is simply a request, as in the phrase, "I pray you tell." Also, notice that when asked, the Apostles simply healed people. They didn't say, "No! Don't ask me, idolator! Go pray to God and he'll heal your child.")
You evaded my question...here it is again:

As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture. Surely you believe there are some on earth today who partake of divine nature. Why do these folks have telephones to talk to each other, if divine energies make them part of a communion of the saints network?

I see the apostles doing lots of miracles, communicating with folks not present isn't one of them.

Answer the question please.
I'll answer you, but first tell me this: where does the New Testament claim to be the sole, all-encompassing, and comprehensive source of history and doctrine from the Apostolic age, describing in indisputable detail every single important event or doctrinal detail? That is the crux of our problem. Until you can answer that, your arguments from silence are pointless, as you have not established that your position is anything more than a presupposition.

Because if the New Testament is not the sole, all-encompassing, comprehensive source for all things that you seem to imply that it is, the answer doesn't matter. If there is no record of that happening, we can't say if it did or not. We certainly cannot rule it out. If there is a record of it happening, you lose automatically.

In other words, first prove that the answer to the question is worth a hill of beans, and then I'll answer it. If you can't, then I won't.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
bogdan said:
Alfred Persson said:
bogdan said:
Alfred Persson said:
As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture. Surely you believe there are some on earth today who partake of divine nature. Why do these folks have telephones to talk to each other, if divine energies make them part of a communion of the saints network?
Have you read the New Testament? The Apostles healed people and even raised the dead. People didn't have to pray to them; they were there in the flesh.

(Technically, the people asking the then-living Apostles to help them was an act of prayer. A prayer is simply a request, as in the phrase, "I pray you tell." Also, notice that when asked, the Apostles simply healed people. They didn't say, "No! Don't ask me, idolator! Go pray to God and he'll heal your child.")
You evaded my question...here it is again:

As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture. Surely you believe there are some on earth today who partake of divine nature. Why do these folks have telephones to talk to each other, if divine energies make them part of a communion of the saints network?

I see the apostles doing lots of miracles, communicating with folks not present isn't one of them.

Answer the question please.
I'll answer you, but first tell me this: where does the New Testament claim to be the sole, all-encompassing, and comprehensive source of history and doctrine from the Apostolic age, describing in indisputable detail every single important event or doctrinal detail? That is the crux of our problem. Until you can answer that, your arguments from silence are pointless, as you have not established that your position is anything more than a presupposition.

Because if the New Testament is not the sole, all-encompassing, comprehensive source for all things that you seem to imply that it is, the answer doesn't matter. If there is no record of that happening, we can't say if it did or not. We certainly cannot rule it out. If there is a record of it happening, you lose automatically.

In other words, first prove that the answer to the question is worth a hill of beans, and then I'll answer it. If you can't, then I won't.
I never said it did, BUT it claims to have everything necessary for my being completely equipped:

15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

(2Ti 3:15-1 NKJ)

In context it may be Paul says this about the Old Testament only. Therefore some argue Paul must be wrong as God added the New Testament later.

As God allowed Paul's words here, to become scripture, He set His seal upon it that He agrees with Paul 100%, as it became scripture, its God writing it too.

BUT God and Paul aren't wrong, consider this analogy:

It does not prove the guests of a banquet were starving to death, when the host offers them more food near its end.

The Old Testament is able to make wise unto salvation, therefore, how much more is Scripture able to completely equip for every good work, including teaching others true doctrine, now that the New Testament has been added!

Now answer my question.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
FormerReformer said:
Alfred Persson said:
It certainly DOES say Abraham and Israel ARE ignorant of the living:

KJV Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.  
Nope, not at all.  The statement here is the same as St Peter saying "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended." (Matt 26:33)  It is a hypothetical statement.  In this case "Though" means "if" or "suppose".  The Hebrews were relatively agnostic about the afterlife, and made no definitive statements one way or the other.  They had no way of knowing if Abraham or Israel could know anything.

From the parable of the rich man and Lazarus it seems as if Abraham has greater knowledge than you assume from this one text in Isaiah, knowing the deeds of the rich man and Lazarus both.

Regardless, you still don't seem to see the fundamental difference between a hypothetical statement in Isaiah's time and a reality in ours.  The Living God descended into Sheol and set the captives free.  Those who were in the ignorance of death were sent the Divine Truth of Life (I Peter 3:18-20, 4:6)!
"Though" is not in the Greek:

BGT  Isaiah 63:16 σὺ γὰρ ἡμῶν εἶ πατήρ ὅτι Αβρααμ οὐκ ἔγνω ἡμᾶς καὶ Ισραηλ οὐκ ἐπέγνω ἡμᾶς ἀλλὰ σύ κύριε πατὴρ ἡμῶν ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐστιν (Isa 63:16 BGT)

LXE  Isaiah 63:16 For thou art our Father; for though Abraham knew us not, and Israel did not acknowledge us, yet do thou, O Lord, our Father, deliver us: thy name has been upon us from the beginning.  (Isa 63:16 LXE)

It affirms literally directly "for Abraham knew us not."

No "if" in the Greek at all, no "though".

The dead are departed, angels come and take their souls into paradise upon death...paradise is in third heaven...its the place from whence Christ will "scoop up" souls to resurrect during His descent at His Second coming:

NKJ  Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."
(Luk 23:43 NKJ)

Paradise = Third Heaven

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a one was caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I know such a man-- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows--
4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
(2Co 12:2-4 NKJ)

Its up, not down:

LXE  Ecclesiastes 3:21 And who has seen the spirit of the sons of man, whether it goes upward? and the spirit of the beast, whether it goes downward to the earth?
(Ecc 3:21 LXE)

22 "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
(Luk 16:22-23 NKJ)

Christ empties third heaven of human souls during His descent...He brings them with Him, they are part of His army:
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.
(1Th 4:15-18 NKJ)


THEREFORE the departed, being they are "departed," cannot hear us.

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Alfred Persson said:
bogdan said:
Alfred Persson said:
bogdan said:
Alfred Persson said:
As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture. Surely you believe there are some on earth today who partake of divine nature. Why do these folks have telephones to talk to each other, if divine energies make them part of a communion of the saints network?
Have you read the New Testament? The Apostles healed people and even raised the dead. People didn't have to pray to them; they were there in the flesh.

(Technically, the people asking the then-living Apostles to help them was an act of prayer. A prayer is simply a request, as in the phrase, "I pray you tell." Also, notice that when asked, the Apostles simply healed people. They didn't say, "No! Don't ask me, idolator! Go pray to God and he'll heal your child.")
You evaded my question...here it is again:

As for THEOSIS, if that enabled saints to hear other saints not actually present, then you would find examples of that in scripture. Surely you believe there are some on earth today who partake of divine nature. Why do these folks have telephones to talk to each other, if divine energies make them part of a communion of the saints network?

I see the apostles doing lots of miracles, communicating with folks not present isn't one of them.

Answer the question please.
I'll answer you, but first tell me this: where does the New Testament claim to be the sole, all-encompassing, and comprehensive source of history and doctrine from the Apostolic age, describing in indisputable detail every single important event or doctrinal detail? That is the crux of our problem. Until you can answer that, your arguments from silence are pointless, as you have not established that your position is anything more than a presupposition.

Because if the New Testament is not the sole, all-encompassing, comprehensive source for all things that you seem to imply that it is, the answer doesn't matter. If there is no record of that happening, we can't say if it did or not. We certainly cannot rule it out. If there is a record of it happening, you lose automatically.

In other words, first prove that the answer to the question is worth a hill of beans, and then I'll answer it. If you can't, then I won't.
I never said it did, BUT it claims to have everything necessary for my being completely equipped:
No, it doesn't.  What this passage from one of St. Paul's epistles does claim is that the Scriptures are useful for fully equipping the follower of Christ for good works, but it doesn't say that the Scriptures have everything necessary for us to be so equipped.  What you present is a very common Protestant eisegesis of the text, but it is nowhere to be found in the text.

Alfred Persson said:
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

(2Ti 3:15-1 NKJ)
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,735
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Alfred Persson said:
A self contradiction, decrying the "tradition of man" you bind yourself to Orthodox tradition, which realized its defects and sought to stabilize itself in the "consensus of the fathers."

Sola scriptura is the antidote for relying upon "the tradition of man," for the Bible is written by God.
How many "man-made" English translations of the Bible exist?  NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, "the Message," and so on....

How many "man-made" interpretations of the Bible exist?

So, if "something" in the Bible doesn't agree with "your" belief system (or Mel Gibson's or Anne Rice's, just for sake of argument), then you "conjure up" an interpretation and proselytize to us that you discovered something that we hadn't noticed previously.

If I tried that, I would be discredited in a heartbeat; yet, you've had hundreds of posts to keep digging your own grave.  I'm not the one to give you a shovel to keep digging your own grave.   ;D

Edited for content
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
FormerReformer said:
Alfred Persson said:
It certainly DOES say Abraham and Israel ARE ignorant of the living:

KJV Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.  
Nope, not at all.  The statement here is the same as St Peter saying "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended." (Matt 26:33)  It is a hypothetical statement.  In this case "Though" means "if" or "suppose".  The Hebrews were relatively agnostic about the afterlife, and made no definitive statements one way or the other.  They had no way of knowing if Abraham or Israel could know anything.

From the parable of the rich man and Lazarus it seems as if Abraham has greater knowledge than you assume from this one text in Isaiah, knowing the deeds of the rich man and Lazarus both.

Regardless, you still don't seem to see the fundamental difference between a hypothetical statement in Isaiah's time and a reality in ours.  The Living God descended into Sheol and set the captives free.  Those who were in the ignorance of death were sent the Divine Truth of Life (I Peter 3:18-20, 4:6)!
"Though" is not in the Greek:

BGT  Isaiah 63:16 σὺ γὰρ ἡμῶν εἶ πατήρ ὅτι Αβρααμ οὐκ ἔγνω ἡμᾶς καὶ Ισραηλ οὐκ ἐπέγνω ἡμᾶς ἀλλὰ σύ κύριε πατὴρ ἡμῶν ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐστιν (Isa 63:16 BGT)

LXE  Isaiah 63:16 For thou art our Father; for though Abraham knew us not, and Israel did not acknowledge us, yet do thou, O Lord, our Father, deliver us: thy name has been upon us from the beginning.  (Isa 63:16 LXE)

It affirms literally directly "for Abraham knew us not."

No "if" in the Greek at all, no "though".
I'm willing to concede that "ei" in this case might be a form of "eis" and not "ei" which means "if" or "though", but if so a lot of translators have it off.  Regardless, one verse in Isaiah does not supersede a parable of Christ, in which Abraham seems a lot more informed than you think.


The dead are departed, angels come and take their souls into paradise upon death...paradise is in third heaven...its the place from whence Christ will "scoop up" souls to resurrect during His descent at His Second coming:

NKJ  Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."
(Luk 23:43 NKJ)

Paradise = Third Heaven

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a one was caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I know such a man-- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows--
4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
(2Co 12:2-4 NKJ)
Some.  Some ring the throne of God, as seen in Revelation 4:4.


Its up, not down:

LXE  Ecclesiastes 3:21 And who has seen the spirit of the sons of man, whether it goes upward? and the spirit of the beast, whether it goes downward to the earth?
(Ecc 3:21 LXE)
Wow, you are really stretching it here.  It's a statement of agnosticism, the very verse prior the Preacher claims that both souls of animals and man go to the same place.  It's certainly not a roadmap to the afterlife.

22 "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
(Luk 16:22-23 NKJ)
All we see here is that Lazarus was "up" in relation to the rich man.

Christ empties third heaven of human souls during His descent...He brings them with Him, they are part of His army:
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.
(1Th 4:15-18 NKJ)
Christ already descended, both into the world and into the grave.  Yes, we look forward to His return, but this very verse you give to us shows Christ not bringing those "from the third heaven down" but all meeting together in the clouds.

THEREFORE the departed, being they are "departed," cannot hear us.
Nothing you have shown proves one way or the other.  You are arguing not from silence but from proof-texts that have absolutely nothing to do with your point.

Good night, Mr Persson.

 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Alfred Persson said:
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
16 The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain;
17 but when he arrived in Rome, he sought me out very zealously and found me.
18 The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day-- and you know very well how many ways he ministered to me at Ephesus.
(2Ti 1:15-18 NKJ)

19 Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. (2Ti 4:19 NKJ)

So its likely this Onespihorus was departed,
On a side note, does this mean that you are not opposed to praying for the departed?

And just in case you missed it

Alfred Persson said:
These praying saints are already in heaven at the time the book of seals is given to the lamb, the prayers are not from saints on earth and no intercession is occurring in either context.
The word "saints" is typically used in the NT to refer to the saints here on earth. The saints in heaven are offering up the prayers of the saints on earth.

Psalm 103:20-22 does not say pray to Mary and she will intercede for you.
It might not be addressed to human saints in heaven, but it is addressed to the angels in heaven. There is a line addressed to someone in heaven, other than God.

Matt 18:10 doesn't mention the living praying to children in heaven to obtain favor.
It says that the angels in heaven are aware of what is happening on earth and communicate (pray) to God about it.

Luke 15:7 Says nothing about praying to the departed, its about sinners repenting, and the joy that brings in
heaven.
It says that heaven (human saints would be included, seeing there is no restriction to "who" in heaven is rejoicing) is aware of events that happen on earth (the repentence of a sinner).

Between all of these, it is established that those in heaven are aware of what goes on down here, we can address those in heaven, and they communicate with God and offer up prayers.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
11,985
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
You evaded my question...here it is again
For someone who has recognized full well the fallacy of arguments from silence, you seem to rely upon these arguments from silence quite a bit in your posts. ::)  If arguments from silence don't work for others, what makes you so special that you think they'll work for you?
Alfred Persson said:
Fabio Leite said:
is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?
No, an argument from silence is unsound, proves nothing...
rakovsky said:
Mr. Persson,

Do you happen to agree with the substance of the Nicene Creed? Yes, I think you said you do.

Was it not the "men" of the church who wrote it with consensus inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Was not the Bible written by the "men" of the church inspired by the Holy Spirit?

And were not the number of those books chosen by the men of the church with consensus inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Regards
What do you think?

Perhaps while some traditions, like some ancient "men" of the early church may not be INFALLIBLE, they may still be an important AUTHORITY on the true Christian faith.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
rakovsky said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
You evaded my question...here it is again
For someone who has recognized full well the fallacy of arguments from silence, you seem to rely upon these arguments from silence quite a bit in your posts. ::)  If arguments from silence don't work for others, what makes you so special that you think they'll work for you?
Alfred Persson said:
Fabio Leite said:
is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?
No, an argument from silence is unsound, proves nothing...
rakovsky said:
Mr. Persson,

Do you happen to agree with the substance of the Nicene Creed? Yes, I think you said you do.

Was it not the "men" of the church who wrote it with consensus inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Was not the Bible written by the "men" of the church inspired by the Holy Spirit?

And were not the number of those books chosen by the men of the church with consensus inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Regards
What do you think?

Perhaps while some traditions, like some ancient "men" of the early church may not be INFALLIBLE, they may still be an important AUTHORITY on the true Christian faith.
I agree with Nicean Trinitarianism because it is taught in scripture, not because of Nicean Council.

"but about the faith they wrote not, `It seemed good,' but, `Thus believes the Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.-Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.  


I don't accept what men teach, if it contradicts scripture, even if it seems to be inspired by God.

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
(1Co 14:36-38 NKJ)

Consider carefully what Paul was saying, the Corinthian church was experiencing mighty works of God, revelations via tongues, prophecy and supernatural knowledge (1 Cor 13:8ff; c. 14)

That inspired tradition would be considered infallible by both the Orthodox and Catholics.

Paul rejected it as being equal to the Word of God he preached.

Careful readers of scripture notice it was possible a "prophet" be wrong about an inspired teaching, yet not be cast out as a false prophet:

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
(1Co 14:29-33 NKJ)

A person might be prophesying, and be wrong...those established in the faith, two or three themselves prophets, were to judge the "inspired utterance" to verify its orthodoxy.

No hint of condemnation if these judge the utterance to be wrong, which proves to me this wasn't what we today consider "prophecy." Rather it was equal to today's expository preaching, where someone believes they have a doctrine right, and they teach it to the church. If a spirit were prophesying incorrect, I have no doubt he would have been cast out of the church.


How could a "Holy Spirit filled man" get his inspired prophecy wrong? Human nature.

The Holy Spirit's guidance is not "dictation," He grants "perception" into the truth, but it still requires an act of will to accept it, and being "inspired to choose what is right" is not revelation of God's Word. If you don't grasp a doctrine, because you refuse to consider facts, or weren't diligent to uncover all the facts, the Holy Spirit isn't going to reveal them to you. You are required to do due diligence...and then He guides you, using the facts, to the truth.

God is not going to override YOU, your personality and will, He loves us too much for that. He "respects our person," and loves us...He does not indwell, to make robots.

So an inspired teacher might think he has it right, but does not. Although there may be a "nagging doubt" that the Holy Spirit is using to warn him he doesn't, that can be ignored, to our own detriment of course. (Never ignore or trample upon a doubt about a teaching, always verify the teaching by God's Word the Bible).


So Paul is very clear, regardless what a "church's living tradition" is, he brought the inerrant, infallible "word of God" to the church. The Word of God does not come from the church.

THAT is why I don't believe church tradition above scripture, no church, even one shepherded by an apostle, has the "word of God"...that came through Christ and His apostles only...therefore sola scriptura is necessary.

Don't misinterpret sola scriptura, I don't reject everything outside of scripture, some of it is helpful, fills in gaps, language cannot be understood without considering extra-biblical usage...but NONE of that material is "the word of God" therefore ONLY SCRIPTURA, or SCRIPTURE ALONE is the "word of God." Everything else is below it in authority.

ANOTHER aspect of this, the apostles themselves were not infallible:

NKJ  James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
2 For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.
(Jam 3:1-2 NKJ)

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:8-9 NKJ)

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; (Gal 2:11 NKJ)


Once their preaching became scripture, then it has God's seal on it as infallible.

NKJ  2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (2Ti 3:16 NKJ)



Therefore, even if one of the apostles were alive today, preaching, I would still judge what he said, by researching scripture.

That is precisely what the Bereans did, and they were commended for it:

NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
(Act 17:11 NKJ)


Therefore Catholic and Orthodox ideas about ECF tradition, magisterium, living tradition of the church, are all wrong. Scripture alone is verified as the Word of God, everything else is below it in  authority.




 

bogdan

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Alfred Persson said:
bogdan said:
I'll answer you, but first tell me this: where does the New Testament claim to be the sole, all-encompassing, and comprehensive source of history and doctrine from the Apostolic age, describing in indisputable detail every single important event or doctrinal detail? That is the crux of our problem. Until you can answer that, your arguments from silence are pointless, as you have not established that your position is anything more than a presupposition.

Because if the New Testament is not the sole, all-encompassing, comprehensive source for all things that you seem to imply that it is, the answer doesn't matter. If there is no record of that happening, we can't say if it did or not. We certainly cannot rule it out. If there is a record of it happening, you lose automatically.

In other words, first prove that the answer to the question is worth a hill of beans, and then I'll answer it. If you can't, then I won't.
I never said it did, BUT it claims to have everything necessary for my being completely equipped:

15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

(2Ti 3:15-1 NKJ)

In context it may be Paul says this about the Old Testament only. Therefore some argue Paul must be wrong as God added the New Testament later.

As God allowed Paul's words here, to become scripture, He set His seal upon it that He agrees with Paul 100%, as it became scripture, its God writing it too.

BUT God and Paul aren't wrong, consider this analogy:

It does not prove the guests of a banquet were starving to death, when the host offers them more food near its end.

The Old Testament is able to make wise unto salvation, therefore, how much more is Scripture able to completely equip for every good work, including teaching others true doctrine, now that the New Testament has been added!

Now answer my question.
(I think PeterTheAleut gave a fine response, but for my own part—)

No, actually it doesn't claim that. You are once again defaulting to reading the words through your bias.

The text does say that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. And because of that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction, he will be equipped.

The text does not say that the Scripture itself equips people. Rather they are equipped by these things that are derived from scripture. (We could get into a whole discussion about this by itself, but it's beside the point.)

My point is: even in this verse, which stands at the very pinnacle of the Sola Scriptura defense, the Bible does not claim to be all-sufficient or all-equipping. The Bible does not claim sole authority for itself, as you yourself admitted. Nor does it claim that every single doctrine and practice must flow from its pages. Therefore, whether prayers to the saints are in the Bible or not—it doesn't matter—it has zero bearing on the legitimacy of such a practice, because the Bible is not intrinsically all-encompassing and all-sufficient. If it was, it would say so.
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Alfred Persson said:
I never said it did, BUT it claims to have everything necessary for my being completely equipped:

15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2Ti 3:15-1 NKJ)
You forgot vs 10-14:

But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

Timothy's knowledge of the Scripture was not enough by itself. He needed to keep his understanding of the Scripture in line with what Paul had taught him through discipleship.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
56
Location
USA
Alfred Persson said:
recent convert said:
Again the preaching in the tradition of man is given to us divorced from holy tradition by inflating an aspect of heavenly worship within holy tradition counter to its meaning reduced to legalistic, justification of human reasoning. Case in point, "the cloud of witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1 are reduced by individualist rationalization to an obituary listing by opinion that replaces their role within the scripture since it is their witness that assists us to "lay aside every weight and sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith..." (Hebrews 12:1-2 in part).

The tradition of man being preached to us keeps boasting in the scripture that we do not follow scripture which is false and refernces to Calvin for wisdom are poison to us. To expand on the cloud of witness idea, if I was an Ethiopian Orthodox, this concept would be easily Biblically illustrated to me on the basis that the book of Enoch which is in the canon of their church states, "...I saw the habitations and couches of the saints. There my eyes beheld their habitations with the angels, and their couches with the holy ones. They were entreating, supplicating, & praying for the sons of men.." (enoch 39:4). This is the understanding we see within the letter of Hebrews and the roll call given by St. Paul (which includes Enoch) in Hebrews 11 of the faithful witnesses in which the point culminates in Hebrews 12:1. The concept of the many habitations seems most similar to what the Lord says, "In My Father's house are many mansions..."in John 14:2.

Why Enoch is not universal canon, I do not know (it was lost for over 1000 years in many areas) but it was written before & attests to the revelation of the Son of God in many areas & clearly evident within holy tradtion & such attestation expressed in liturgical worship centuries prior to the codification of canon beats guess work of the apostolic faith expressed by a tradtion of man.
A self contradiction, decrying the "tradition of man" you bind yourself to Orthodox tradition, which realized its defects and sought to stabilize itself in the "consensus of the fathers."

Sola scriptura is the antidote for relying upon "the tradition of man," for the Bible is written by God.


.
So the same book that St. Jude quotes from in his epistle as scripture is a tradition of man. Why refer anywhere else to scripture & source other than your postings?
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
recent convert said:
Alfred Persson said:
recent convert said:
Again the preaching in the tradition of man is given to us divorced from holy tradition by inflating an aspect of heavenly worship within holy tradition counter to its meaning reduced to legalistic, justification of human reasoning. Case in point, "the cloud of witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1 are reduced by individualist rationalization to an obituary listing by opinion that replaces their role within the scripture since it is their witness that assists us to "lay aside every weight and sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith..." (Hebrews 12:1-2 in part).

The tradition of man being preached to us keeps boasting in the scripture that we do not follow scripture which is false and refernces to Calvin for wisdom are poison to us. To expand on the cloud of witness idea, if I was an Ethiopian Orthodox, this concept would be easily Biblically illustrated to me on the basis that the book of Enoch which is in the canon of their church states, "...I saw the habitations and couches of the saints. There my eyes beheld their habitations with the angels, and their couches with the holy ones. They were entreating, supplicating, & praying for the sons of men.." (enoch 39:4). This is the understanding we see within the letter of Hebrews and the roll call given by St. Paul (which includes Enoch) in Hebrews 11 of the faithful witnesses in which the point culminates in Hebrews 12:1. The concept of the many habitations seems most similar to what the Lord says, "In My Father's house are many mansions..."in John 14:2.

Why Enoch is not universal canon, I do not know (it was lost for over 1000 years in many areas) but it was written before & attests to the revelation of the Son of God in many areas & clearly evident within holy tradtion & such attestation expressed in liturgical worship centuries prior to the codification of canon beats guess work of the apostolic faith expressed by a tradtion of man.
A self contradiction, decrying the "tradition of man" you bind yourself to Orthodox tradition, which realized its defects and sought to stabilize itself in the "consensus of the fathers."

Sola scriptura is the antidote for relying upon "the tradition of man," for the Bible is written by God.


.
So the same book that St. Jude quotes from in his epistle as scripture is a tradition of man. Why refer anywhere else to scripture & source other than your postings?
You assume he quotes Enoch, both could just as likely be citing the same tradition that is unknown today.

BUT lets assume you are correct, does it follow the book should be canon?

Paul quotes two "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.”  

KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV)  

Are these are to be made canon? Of course not, therefore neither should Enoch. The content of the book clearly conflicts with NT teaching.


20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20 NKJ)
 
Top