 |
Perhaps the quotes from scripture were in "white letter" font. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Always, the defense for unscriptural doctrine gets personal.Quote:
Of course I suspected that YOU would not see anything that goes against what you believe.
If you have not studied what scriptural backup there is for the trinity, that is not an issue to be resolved in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But still dead in the flesh and God's word has not changed with respect to speaking to the dead in the flesh being an abomination.Quote:
And so go the dead in the flesh who are now alive in spirit in heaven.
Jesus was both man and God. Just as the Council of Ephesus said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I am saying that there no grounds, scriptural or otherwise, for thinking that his being transfigured makes a difference with respect to the issue of speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints.Quote:
Do you say that being transfigured into His glorified state as God makes no difference?
And yet you prefer to adhere to Dt.18.11, as you understand it, than to follow the example of your Savior. Are you a Judaizer?Quote:
Why do you mis-represent me? I never said that I did.
In Mt. Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law. Hebrews 10.9 tells us that Jesus "abolished" it. Make of that what you wish.Quote:
Are you telling us that Jesus did away with the law?
Or did he fulfill the law?
I'll go even farther. Scripture says that unless we obey God's law was cannot be saved.Quote:
Does scripture tell us that we can do whatever we please? Or does it say that we are to abide by the spirit of the law?
But, since that's another topic, I'll just say that we are not permitted to do whatever we please. One of the things we are to do is to imitate Christ.
It would seem that I "dare" (I still can't believe you say things like that. Very junior high school.) I'll be interested to see if in the time that it's taken me to compose this post you have answered my questions. Do you have scruples about trimming you forelocks (an abomination) or sharing a chair with a menstruating woman (also an abomination). Oh, and that verse, the one that tells is that the Persons of the Trinity are homoousios, hypostases. Maybe even one that talks about the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit. I bet you haven't.Quote:
I'd be most interested to hear your answers if you dare to answer my questions.
Nope, God doesn't change. He is outside of time. Change is a temporal process.Quote:
So do you say that the Bible erred when it says that God never changes?
Nope, just yours. In fact, you are WAY out of sync with most of Christian history on this one. Actually, not just this one, as I've pointed out many times before.Quote:
I am disturbed to hear that you view scripture, and the understanding of death held by Christians throughout the centuries as "Un-Christian"
Your questions had to do with my opinion. We are examining the Word of God here, not my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Actually, it is relevant to the present discussion. You claim that there is no Scriptural support for praying to the saints in heaven. De Maria and I have offered lots of Scripture. You seem to think that what would be required is a verse that explicitly says, "Pray to the saints in heaven". That there is no such verse does not show that this practice is prohibited, nor indeed that it isn't of great benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
There is not explicit affirmation in Scripture of the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine had to be inferred from a great many verses scattered throughout the Bible. So you seem to have a double-standard, since you are willing to accept the doctrine of the Trinity despite the absence of any explicit affirmation of that doctrine in Scripture.
As for what is and is not an abomination: De Maria and I have both explained our reasons for taking you to be guilty either of misrepresenting or just misunderstanding the prohibition of Dt.18.11. You claim to have lots of scholarly support for your view, but you've yet to share any of it with us. A great many translations of the verse to which you appeal render the Hebrew thus: "necromancy".
Moreover, you haven't acknowledged never having trimmed your beard or forelocks, so it appears that something's being said to be an abomination isn't sufficient to keep you from engaging in it. So why here? Do you avoid sharing a seat with a menstruating woman? Shall we canvass some of the other things that are said to be abominations?
I am glad to see you agree. Jesus is the only one, so that is one difference between us and Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
So you are saying that there was no purpose for Him being transfigured or giving up His glory as God before coming to earth in the flesh.Quote:
I am saying that there no grounds, scriptural or otherwise, for thinking that his being transfigured makes a difference with respect to the issue of speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints.
Clearly this is a point where we differ. I do not think that Jesus was into shock and awe entertainment, and there was a purpose for the transfiguration.
Interesting position - trying to put Jesus in opposition to the law. Not a Biblical or Christian position, but I am interested to see you express it.Quote:
And yet you prefer to adhere to Dt.18.11, as you understand it, than to follow the example of your Savior. Are you a Judaizer?
Here are a couple of verses which you may find disturb your theology:
Matt 5:17-18
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
NKJV
Rom 6:15-16
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16
NKJV
Because Christian are not under the law does not in any way give us licence to be lawless.
I make of it that you are altering scripture:Quote:
Hebrews 10.9 tells us that Jesus "abolished" it. Make of that what you wish.
Heb 10:8-10
8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
NKJV
This speaks to the fulfillment of the law not the abolishing of it.
But, since that's another topic, I'll just say that we are not permitted to do whatever we please. One of the things we are to do is to imitate Christ.
Using the English language is not, but certainly the playground like snipes that we see coming on here trying to demean others are.Quote:
It would seem that I "dare" (I still can't believe you say things like that. Very junior high school.)
Good - then why do you think that God now endorses what he previously said was an abomination?Quote:
Nope, God doesn't change. He is outside of time. Change is a temporal process.
This is perhaps a topic you may wish to study a bit more.Quote:
Nope, just yours. In fact, you are WAY out of sync with most of Christian history on this one. Actually, not just this one, as I've pointed out many times before.
Wondergirl,
Yes!!
Fred
Because none has been presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Really? Perhaps you'd like to copy and paste those scripture references here.Quote:
De Maria and I have offered lots of Scripture.
As I have said many times, show me a passage which says it, or an example in scripture where we see an exhortation to pray to the dead, or an example of something praying to the dead.Quote:
You seem to think that what would be required is a verse that explicitly says, "Pray to the saints in heaven".
I am sorry that your Bible omits so much.Quote:
That there is no such verse does not show that this practice is prohibited, nor indeed that it isn't of great benefit.
Akoue, I suspect that you have not done a great deal of study for what scripture says about the trinity or I cannot see how you would be making so many comments opposing the Biblical basis for it.Quote:
There is not explicit affirmation in Scripture of the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine had to be inferred from a great many verses scattered throughout the Bible. So you seem to have a double-standard, since you are willing to accept the doctrine of the Trinity despite the absence of any explicit affirmation of that doctrine in Scripture.
I'd be convinced of your position if there was even 1% of the support for speaking to the dead that there is for the trinity. But so far there is not a single verse.
Akoue, I am surprised that you would suggest that there is no scholarly support and then put forward a word which refers to the dead in the flesh.Quote:
As for what is and is not an abomination: De Maria and I have both explained our reasons for taking you to be guilty either of misrepresenting or just misunderstanding the prohibition of Dt.18.11. You claim to have lots of scholarly support for your view, but you've yet to share any of it with us. A great many translations of the verse to which you appeal render the Hebrew thus: "necromancy".
Akoue, this has been addressed so many times, but no doubt you will continue because you are struggling with support for your position.Quote:
Moreover, you haven't acknowledged never having trimmed your beard or forelocks, so it appears that something's being said to be an abomination isn't sufficient to keep you from engaging in it. So why here? Do you avoid sharing a seat with a menstruating woman? Shall we canvass some of the other things that are said to be abominations?
If your position was so strong, surely we'd see the verses supporting it posted here and now!
You asked my opinion many times, so it is good to see you admit that you will demand answers from others, but are unwilling to answer similar questions posed to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Tj3,
As I said there has been a lot of evidence presented here and that it is sad that you could not see it.
Fred
Please quote my asking for your opinion. I couldn't care less about your opinion. Your belief, your proof, yes. Your opinion, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
There are lots of differences. That isn't the issue. You have yet to indicate a relevant difference. Jesus spoke to dead-in-the-flesh saints at the Transfiguration and you haven't given us any reason to suppose that we aren't to imitate him in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
That's a rather dramatic non sequitur. I have said not that there was no purpose, but that there aren't any grounds, Scriptural or otherwise, for thinking that his speaking to them during the Transfiguration demonstrates that we are not to speak to them as well. This is your bias at work.Quote:
So you are saying that there was no purpose for Him being transfigured or giving up His glory as God before coming to earth in the flesh.
I believe there was a purpose. I suspect you haven't got the vaguest clue what that is, though. Be that as it may, it's not to the point. There is no indication that we are not to do as he has done by speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints.Quote:
Clearly this is a point where we differ. I do not think that Jesus was into shock and awe entertainment, and there was a purpose for the transfiguration.
Are you really as slow as you pretend, or are you purposefully caricaturing what I said? Never mind, don't answer that. You can whine about it later.Quote:
Interesting position - trying to put Jesus in opposition to the law. Not a Biblical or Christian position, but I am interested to see you express it.
I haven't espoused a theology on this topic. But you have. How long are your forelocks, Tom? You keep avoiding my questions, even as you've chastised Wondergirl for failing to answer yours. Do you avoid sitting where a menstruating woman has sat? That's an abomination too, you know.Quote:
Here are a couple of verses which you may find disturb your theology:
So you are saying that we are not under the law?Quote:
Because Christian are not under the law does not in any way give us licence to be lawless.
I don't see the word "fulfill" in what you've quoted.Quote:
I make of it that you are altering scripture:
Heb 10:8-10
8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
NKJV
This speaks to the fulfillment of the law not the abolishing of it.
I'm really glad to see you write that. Does this mean that you're going to stop doing it?Quote:
Using the English language is not, but certainly the playground like snipes that we see coming on here trying to demean others are.
He doesn't. You have misrepresented Dt.18.11. It doesn't prohibit praying to saints. It prohibits necromancy.Quote:
Good - then why do you think that God now endorses what he previously said was an abomination?
Some people may fall for this, but I actually have studied this very topic. That's how I know that you don't know what you're talking about. And this is, of course, why you have ever cited all the many scholars you claim agree with you--about this and a great many other topics. In fact, I seem to recall offering you a list of scholars--very well respected scholars, at that--who don't hold the view that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by Constantine. I seem also to recall you claiming that many scholars agree with you... And yet you've never offered a list of well-regarded scholars who take your view to be correct.Quote:
This is perhaps a topic you may wish to study a bit more.
Would you like to reverse the trend and provide a bibliography in support of your claim?
It is if you are claiming (as you did) that we are to do everything that Jesus did, even when He was transfigured into the glorified state as God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Like I said before, we are seeing the slow degradation into the abuse stage of this thread, just as has happened on there threads where your denomination's unique doctrine have been challenged from scripture.Quote:
I believe there was a purpose. I suspect you haven't got the vaguest clue what that is, though.
Of course by using abuse to distract from the topic, you avoid the issue.
More abuse I see.Quote:
Are you really as slow as you pretend, or are you purposefully caricaturing what I said? Never mind, don't answer that. You can whine about it later.
Now false accusations.Quote:
I'm really glad to see you write that. Does this mean that you're going to stop doing it?
Really get your steam up again!
You may wish to check what necromancy is before further comment heh heh!Quote:
He doesn't. You have misrepresented Dt.18.11. It doesn't prohibit praying to saints. It prohibits necromancy.
Then please show us that you have a command of the topic rather than a talent for abuse and distraction.Quote:
Some people may fall for this, but I actually have studied this very topic.
Akoue,
Yes I agree, on this topic Tj3 does not know what he is talking about.
The saints ARE alive.
Fred
When scripture fails to support your position, fall back on abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Slippery, slippery! You are not speaking to the point that was made about imitating Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I did.I was quite specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Perhaps if, instead of a "commentary" if you would discuss (this is a discussion area) what was said, we could avoid the slippery slop into abuse that seems to have started with yourself and Akoue.
Slippery slop?? LolQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No, you totally avoided the term and its meaning.
What term?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Again, try to enter into respectful discussion.
YOU said "slippery slop." I'm hoping that was a typo on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
term = imitation of Christ
So we are into going after typos rather than dealing with the topic. Maybe you missed what I said about "discussing" the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I addressed that in detail.Quote:
term = imitation of Christ
Then by all means, prove that the fact of his being transfigured shows that we are not to speak to dead-in-the-flesh saints. You have made plenty of allusions, but that's it. There are manifold ways in which we simply haven't the capacity to imitate Christ. But where we do have the capacity, we are obligated to do so. But even more, we should want to imitate him. Why don't you? Are you so confident of your own salvation that you feel it is beneath you to endeavor, in every way you can, to imitate the ways of your Lord and Savior?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I still find it remarkably peculiar that you adhere to such an un-Christian view of death, one you have yet to vindicate (despite more ALLUSIONS to history). Christ conguered death and promised eternal life to his saints. You seem also to regard heaven as something very remote and alien. This is also very un-Christian. In fact, it is in some ways closer to certain forms of Islam.
You're a big boy. You can take it. Though you do whine like a little kid. (Just wanted to give you something else to complain about in your next post.)Quote:
Like I said before, we are seeing the slow degradation into the abuse stage of this thread, just as has happened on there threads where your denomination's unique doctrine have been challenged from scripture.
Of course by using abuse to distract from the topic, you avoid the issue.
More abuse I see.
Now false accusations.
Not quite sure what motivates the "heh heh!". It is perfectly obvious--even to one who doesn't favor prayer to the saints--that that practice is a world away from necromancy. It's also a practice that Christians have been engaging in since the first century, and which Christians have been encouraged by their bishops to engage in--again, since the first century. You and your crazy theological novelties.Quote:
You may wish to check what necromancy is before further comment heh heh!
Now you still haven't said anything about your beard and forelocks. Nor you have you told us whether you avoid sharing a seat with a menstruating woman. Should I quote you? "I understand why."Quote:
Then please show us that you have a command of the topic rather than a talent for abuse and distraction.
If you wish to follow your own very quixotic interpretation of Scripture your are free to do so. I certainly have no interest in trying to persuade you of anything. For my part, I will follow Christ and his ways.
Tj3,
You have proven to me that you do NOT know what you are talking about on this topic, so I'm through discussing it with you.
If others have more evidence about asking saints to pray for us I'm still interested, but you have had notheing to offer.
Fred
No, you really didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quoting Tom: "It's okay. I understand why."
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
If I have a dollar for each time that you said that you would stop discussing one thing or another with me, and then carried on, I'd be retired by now!
Because my source is scripture and there is nothing in scripture support speaking to the dead.Quote:
If others have more evidence about asking saints to pray for us I'm still interested, but you have had notheing to offer.
Akoue, I am not surprised at your denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
It was so droll... so... so... so you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Word twisting again, I see. I never said that. It was you using that incident as an attempt to claim that we should ignore the condemnation of speaking to the dead in favour of imitating what Jesus did in His transfigured state as God.
Nice try, but the onus is on you.
Tell me how to transfigure into God, and I'll concede that we can speak to the dead.Quote:
You have made plenty of allusions, but that's it. There are manifold ways in which we simply haven't the capacity to imitate Christ.
Do you always find it necessary to abuse and mis-represent those who challenge you?Quote:
I still find it remarkably peculiar that you adhere to such an un-Christian view of death, one you have yet to vindicate (despite more ALLUSIONS to history). Christ conguered death and promised eternal life to his saints. You seem also to regard heaven as something very remote and alien. This is also very un-Christian. In fact, it is in some ways closer to certain forms of Islam.
Expectations would also be that ALL of us on here - you included - behave maturely. That is what I ask of you. Do you feel that you are somehow permitted to be abusive? Is this what you mean by your unBiblical belief that Jesus "abolished" the law, so that you could behave however you wished?Quote:
You're a big boy. You can take it. Though you do whine like a little kid. (Just wanted to give you something else to complain about in your next post.)
Because you don't appear to realize the irony. If you studied the topic regarding what necromancy is, you may catch on.Quote:
Not quite sure what motivates the "heh heh!"
More mis-representations. I guess if you have nothing else to offer...Quote:
Now you still haven't said anything about your beard and forelocks. Nor you have you told us whether you avoid sharing a seat with a menstruating woman. Should I quote you? "I understand why."
Glad to hear that you are abandoning speaking to the dead!Quote:
For my part, I will follow Christ and his ways.
WG,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You keep forgetting that Tom alone dictates the terms of the discussion, and he alone is permitted to make dismissive and demeaning remarks about other posters. Now we've been over this again and again: Get with the program! This is Tom's sand-box. If you can't accommodate yourself to that, just pick up your toys and go play somewhere else. He's already threatened to shut down the thread, so either he is a secret moderator or he has reason to believe that the moderators will do as he demands. Of course, his position isn't faring very well and threads typically close when Tom's position doesn't fare very well.
Still missed that request for respectful discussion I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Akoue,Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I neither threatened to shut down the thread because of your abusive behaviour, or false accusations nor threatened anything else. I have no power or authority or influence to do so. But I would hope that someone who claims to be a professor would behave in a more mature manner than tossing about abuse more akin to children.
I note that my requests for respectful discussion are falling on deaf ears.
Whoa! So you really are confused about the Transfiguration. He didn't transfigure into God; he already was God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Oh, but I have. I've even discussed it at length with Bill Newman (historian of science and leading scholar of the occult). That's how I know that your claims are without merit.Quote:
Because you don't appear to realize the irony. If you studied the topic regarding what necromancy is, you may catch on.
You still haven't demonstrated that praying to the saints in heaven constitutes speaking to the dead. You can repeat the claim all you like, but clearly it isn't persuading anyone.
Oh, and did I ever claim to speak to the dead? Or pray to saints in heaven, for that matter? You really shouldn't make assumptions.
I am not confused. You did not read what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
That is correct that he was and is God. But we are not, so we would have to transfigure into God.
Slow down and read more carefully.
I note that you did not address the point that I actually raised.
Of course you know that referring to some supposed conversation that may or may not have taken place with someone who you may not have met and with whom you may or not have had a conversation, and who may or may not have expressed and opinion on this topic which may or may not have been what you claim is about as weak of an argument as you can get.Quote:
Oh, but I have. I've even discussed it at length with Bill Newman (historian of science and leading scholar of the occult). That's how I know that your claims are without merit.
So are you saying that those are in heaven have flesh?Quote:
You still haven't demonstrated that praying to the saints in heaven constitutes speaking to the dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quote:
Once again, are you able to stay on track, or should this thread be shut down before it degenerates further?
And what of my requests? You still haven't described your beard and forelocks. Nor have you told us whether you are willing to sit where a menstruating woman has sat. I hope not, since that's an abomination.Quote:
I note that my requests for respectful discussion are falling on deaf ears.
Maybe when I check in a day or two hence I'll find that you've answered my questions.
Closed
Right. Whereas you constant mention of armies of scholars who support your claims, none of whom you ever cite, is really compelling. You suggested that I know nothing about necromancy. I told you that I do. That's it. Got anything else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 PM. |