johnny Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Daniel PetersonWe disagree.What part do you disagree with? Saying â??Christian is a disciple and a disciple of Christ continues in his wordsâ? is straight from scripture. Saying â??Mormonâ??s do not continue in the words of Christâ? can be shown by comparing Mormon teachings with what the Bible reveals.Flat assertion.We disagree.Assertion that can be supported by scripture and the writings of the early Christians.
johnny Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 LDSMusic483 okay...let's play this out...where does the bible define what a disciple is?John 8:31
Daniel Peterson Posted October 22, 2008 Author Posted October 22, 2008 Saying â??Mormonâ??s do not continue in the words of Christâ? can be shown by comparing Mormon teachings with what the Bible reveals.We disagree on that.Assertion that can be supported by scripture and the writings of the early Christians.We disagree.But I'm happy to leave it at that.Not meaning to be offensive, I simply have no interest in conversation with you.Been there. Done that.
bluebell Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 John 8:31What words of Christ do mormons not continue in?
T-Shirt Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 T-ShirtActs 11:26 says â??the disciples were called Christians first in Antiochâ? â?¦ Christians are disciples."Disciples" is never defined in the Bible. However, the Greek, "mathetes" means, "a learner" or "a pupil" and the Greek, "Christianos" means "a follower of Christ". Mormons fit both definitions quite nicely.T-Shirt
consiglieri Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Johnny,Where does the Bible define, "Christian"?T-ShirtThe same place it defines "following his words."All the Best!--Consiglieri
Robspectre Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Johnny...I am a follower and so is my family. We follow the teachings of Jesus. I am LDS. I am a Christian. It is verrrrrrrry narrowminded of you to make such claims about us. I do not believe people who don't share the exact same faith are not-Christian. I believe we (LDS) follow much closer to the Christs teachings than any other denomination out there. I believe we are the most correct. What is your reason for saying that we are not Christian? Different Jesus? Well, maybe. My Jesus suffered and died on a cross to pay for my sins. 3 days later he was raised from the dead. Christ is the Lord. What did your Jesus do? If your Jesus is different then you could be right. Your Jesus is a differnt Jesus.
Servant Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 I'll even give you another rendering or possible understanding. It could also be saying that Onesipherus apostatized, and Paul was praying for mercy on him and before he wasn't offended by his chains and refreshed him, but he no longer did those things. You introduced the argument, so it's your job to prove he was dead, and simply pointing to a past tense verb is not sufficient evidence. So unless you can come up with better proof for you claim, you would be better off stating, you think that Onesipherus is dead, but you aren't sure because nowhere does it say so.edited because I can't spellit could be???? yeah ok whatever...that isnt something that would of been said if that was the case...you make an assumption at least the one i provide mades sense...that he is dead with the scripture...but anyways...you seem to want to narrow on this and ignore the rest...interesting
consiglieri Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Johnny...I am a follower and so is my family. We follow the teachings of Jesus. I am LDS. I am a Christian.Those who follow in Jesus' words don't tell people who believe in Jesus they are not Christians.
consiglieri Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 it could be???? yeah ok whatever...that isnt something that would of been said if that was the case...you make an assumption at least the one i provide mades sense...that he is dead with the scripture...but anyways...you seem to want to narrow on this and ignore the rest...interestingThe reason LDSMusic "narrows" on this is because this is the only scripture you have cited that even has a ghost of a chance of actually teaching what you claim is biblically supported . . . but upon actually reading the scripture (which I had to quote, by the way), it doesn't say that at all . . . and when it is pointed out to you, your response is, "Oh, yeah? Well, it doesn't say the guy wasn't dead!"This would be a further example of the difference between our definitions of reason and logic.All the Best!--Consiglieri
LDSMusic483 Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 it could be???? yeah ok whatever...that isnt something that would of been said if that was the case...you make an assumption at least the one i provide mades sense...that he is dead with the scripture...but anyways...you seem to want to narrow on this and ignore the rest...interestingNo more than those individuals who claim that Paul was talking about non-Christian groups in pointing to Baptism for the Dead. Most make an assumption, but atleast the one we provide makes sense. I already responded to the rest. You are the one with a narrow interpretation of what "was" means. When Paul was in Rome, Onesiphorus refreshed him and wasn't ashamed of him. You are only looking at the aspect of "was" as meaning that he did it then, but couldn't possibly be doing it anymore because Paul said was, and therefore must mean he's dead. Yours is the narrow understanding.
Servant Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 No more than those individuals who claim that Paul was talking about non-Christian groups in pointing to Baptism for the Dead. Most make an assumption, but atleast the one we provide makes sense. I already responded to the rest. You are the one with a narrow interpretation of what "was" means. When Paul was in Rome, Onesiphorus refreshed him and wasn't ashamed of him. You are only looking at the aspect of "was" as meaning that he did it then, but couldn't possibly be doing it anymore because Paul said was, and therefore must mean he's dead. Yours is the narrow understanding.oh...not it is non-christian...could you show me where Paul's friend was a non-christian?are you saying that what you are saying makes sense? really? how so? you pick one scripture that does not say it is for it or against it....that one little scripture...but yet I have loads of scripture that supports the prayers for the dead...and yours makes sense?
bluebell Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 you pick one scripture that does not say it is for it or against it....that one little scripture...but yet I have loads of scripture that supports the prayers for the dead...and yours makes sense? I think the point servant, one that you have yet to address, is that the only scripture you have that might be speaking about praying for the dead is the example of Paul's friend.Since there is as much evidence to support your interpretation as the LDS interpretation, it's not possible to suggest that your beliefs are more valid than ours are, which is what it appears you are trying to assert.The 'loads' of other scriptures you are talking about have already been addressed and shown to not be the evidence that you believe them to be. If you disagree with the LDS interpretation of these, then that's fine-but to just repeat, 'they agree with me' over and over again is not going to work in a discussion of this kind.
LDSMusic483 Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 oh...not it is non-christian...could you show me where Paul's friend was a non-christian?are you saying that what you are saying makes sense? really? how so? you pick one scripture that does not say it is for it or against it....that one little scripture...but yet I have loads of scripture that supports the prayers for the dead...and yours makes sense? You misunderstood, I was talking about opinions of the baptism for the dead verse. I most definitely think Pauls friend was Christian. Now, we have already stated that you have only just this 1 scripture that could even somehow be twisted to interpret what you think it does. Now, looking at that and the baptism for the dead scripture, there is much more credence on the baptism for the dead scripture than on yours. You say that our scripture never says one way or another if Paul is for or against it. I say your scripture never says that Onesiphorus is dead. Now in the baptism for the dead scripture, we can apply some logic to what Paul thinks of the practice. He is trying to convince the Corinthians of the resurrection. Now, do you think Paul, who was not offended for Christ, willing to suffer all he did, testify of Christ before kings and rulers, and even call out Peter on something he though Peter did was wrong...that Paul...do you think he would use a heretical practice to try to increase his position on the resurrection? Why would he do that? My understanding of Paul is that he was very well learned in the scriptures. He could have quoted the wazoo out of them to the Corinths, but you would rather think that he was using a heretical practice as an example? It would be similar to the Pope teaching a congregation in Rome who was having difficulty with the resurrection and saying "why do the mormons baptize the dead if there is no resurrection?" He would have no need to do that, and would definitely not use it as a basis if he did NOT think it a good practice.Your verse on the other hand, is a matter of grammar. You say "was" of a necessity shows that his friend was dead. Would his friend after his death then been ashamed of his chains? We also don't know why he included Onesiphorus in his letter. The preceding letter could have said, "hey we heard that Onesiphorus didn't help you out any in Rome and that he actually was embarrassed to be seen with you." He could have been talking in the past tense, about that time period specifically. "Onesiphorus refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains." He is showing his gratitude, but is obviously talking about a time period that was in the past. Perhaps Onesiphorus then had no more ability to "refresh" him because he was not presently with him, and he had no reason to be "offended of his chains" because once again, he wasn't present there for anybody to say "your the friend of the guy who's in jail." Your reasoning just leaves many other possibilities.The 'loads' of other scriptures you are talking about have already been addressed and shown to not be the evidence that you believe them to be. If you disagree with the LDS interpretation of these, then that's fine-but to just repeat, 'they agree with me' over and over again is not going to work in a discussion of this kind.Indeed, we already have on Johnny on this board, I don't care to go circles with another.
Servant Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 You misunderstood, I was talking about opinions of the baptism for the dead verse. I most definitely think Pauls friend was Christian. Now, we have already stated that you have only just this 1 scripture that could even somehow be twisted to interpret what you think it does. Now, looking at that and the baptism for the dead scripture, there is much more credence on the baptism for the dead scripture than on yours. You say that our scripture never says one way or another if Paul is for or against it. I say your scripture never says that Onesiphorus is dead. Now in the baptism for the dead scripture, we can apply some logic to what Paul thinks of the practice. He is trying to convince the Corinthians of the resurrection. Now, do you think Paul, who was not offended for Christ, willing to suffer all he did, testify of Christ before kings and rulers, and even call out Peter on something he though Peter did was wrong...that Paul...do you think he would use a heretical practice to try to increase his position on the resurrection? Why would he do that? My understanding of Paul is that he was very well learned in the scriptures. He could have quoted the wazoo out of them to the Corinths, but you would rather think that he was using a heretical practice as an example? It would be similar to the Pope teaching a congregation in Rome who was having difficulty with the resurrection and saying "why do the mormons baptize the dead if there is no resurrection?" He would have no need to do that, and would definitely not use it as a basis if he did NOT think it a good practice.Your verse on the other hand, is a matter of grammar. You say "was" of a necessity shows that his friend was dead. Would his friend after his death then been ashamed of his chains? We also don't know why he included Onesiphorus in his letter. The preceding letter could have said, "hey we heard that Onesiphorus didn't help you out any in Rome and that he actually was embarrassed to be seen with you." He could have been talking in the past tense, about that time period specifically. "Onesiphorus refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains." He is showing his gratitude, but is obviously talking about a time period that was in the past. Perhaps Onesiphorus then had no more ability to "refresh" him because he was not presently with him, and he had no reason to be "offended of his chains" because once again, he wasn't present there for anybody to say "your the friend of the guy who's in jail." Your reasoning just leaves many other possibilities.when I said I gave out more scripture i was talking about the prayers for the dead not just for onesiphorus...I wonder why the early church didnt teach this but instead taught the prayers of the dead (Im speaking of the Early Church Fathers who are not heretics by the church at that time of course)? strange but ok...anyways.....
LDSMusic483 Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 when I said I gave out more scripture i was talking about the prayers for the dead not just for onesiphorus...I wonder why the early church didnt teach this but instead taught the prayers of the dead (Im speaking of the Early Church Fathers who are not heretics by the church at that time of course)? strange but ok...anyways.....Because things started to change once the apostles were dead and revelation ceased. And I know you meant you gave more scripture for prayers for the dead, but not one of them points to prayers for the dead. Not ONE of them says to pray for the dead, or that there were prayers for the dead or any such thing. They are scriptures that could be pointed to in necessitating prayers for the dead if you believe that there were prayers for the dead. But any non-biased reader would not get out of those that there were prayers for the dead based on those scriptures.
Helmuth Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Servant, johnny, I worry that my IQ may have gone down reading your posts in this thread.
Servant Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 I think the point servant, one that you have yet to address, is that the only scripture you have that might be speaking about praying for the dead is the example of Paul's friend.Since there is as much evidence to support your interpretation as the LDS interpretation, it's not possible to suggest that your beliefs are more valid than ours are, which is what it appears you are trying to assert.The 'loads' of other scriptures you are talking about have already been addressed and shown to not be the evidence that you believe them to be. If you disagree with the LDS interpretation of these, then that's fine-but to just repeat, 'they agree with me' over and over again is not going to work in a discussion of this kind.you know maybe you should read this whole thread....i was understanding with what another poster said...and LDSMusic483 seemed to narrow in on one scripture (and ignoring the rest of it) and to say this and that....i find it odd that you would direct this at just me...but hey that is ok...maybe it is because im not mormon? who knows...but to asnwer your first part of your post....i didnt say such thing..your friend did in so many words....again go look where I was understanding another person before LDSMusic483 joined in...
LDSMusic483 Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 you know maybe you should read this whole thread....i was understanding with what another poster said...and LDSMusic483 seemed to narrow in on one scripture (and ignoring the rest of it) and to say this and that....i find it odd that you would direct this at just me...but hey that is ok...maybe it is because im not mormon? who knows...but to asnwer your first part of your post....i didnt say such thing..your friend did in so many words....again go look where I was understanding another person before LDSMusic483 joined in...Servant,I wasn't the one who said that there was more scriptural reference for praying for the dead than baptism for the dead. You didNor was I the one to call for the scripture references.Yes, you agreed sort of that they could have come from similar backgrounds(baptism for the dead & praying for the dead), but then you had to put your foot down for your belief saying it was more biblical.My purpose in engaging in this discussion is refuting your claim. I did not initially narrow in on one verse you presented. I answered all of them together. It was you who said that we did not understand this one scripture and that we did not understand the meaning of "was." I have answered that claim. You zero'd in first on this scripture, I have obliged you. Really, I think the entire list of scriptures you provided do not in any way point to prayers for the dead. I did concede that if you had an irrational understanding of the verse in 2 Tim, you might possibly be able to draw that conclusion. I have focused on that scripture because of all the non-proving scriptures you have offered, it was the most plausible and merited the greatest attention.
Servant Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Servant,I wasn't the one who said that there was more scriptural reference for praying for the dead than baptism for the dead. You didNor was I the one to call for the scripture references.Yes, you agreed sort of that they could have come from similar backgrounds, but then you had to put your foot down for your belief saying it was more biblical.My purpose in engaging in this discussion is refuting your claim. I did not initially narrow in on one verse you presented. I answered all of them together. It was you who said that we did not understand this one scripture and that we did not understand the meaning of "was." I have answered that claim. You zero'd in first on this scripture, I have obliged you. Really, I think the entire list of scriptures you provided do not in any way point to prayers for the dead. I did concede that if you had an irrational understanding of the verse in 2 Tim, you might possibly be able to draw that conclusion. I have focused on that scripture because of all the non-proving scriptures you have offered, it was the most plausible and merited the greatest attention.funny....you are doing what you claim i did...whatever...
bluebell Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 you know maybe you should read this whole thread....i was understanding with what another poster said...and LDSMusic483 seemed to narrow in on one scripture (and ignoring the rest of it) and to say this and that....i find it odd that you would direct this at just me...but hey that is ok...maybe it is because im not mormon? who knows...but to asnwer your first part of your post....i didnt say such thing..your friend did in so many words....again go look where I was understanding another person before LDSMusic483 joined in...It's probably your condescending tone that is half the problem. It's hard to take condescending people seriously-they shoot themselves in the foot with such an attitude.And i have been following the thread along from the beginning.My post to you was not because you are not LDS-it was because you were making yourself look illogical and i thought you would like to know that (i know that when i get illogical, which i sometimes do, i appreciate someone kindly pointing it out). And finally, it's not just me and it's not just LDSmusic-Consig. also has pointed out that your arguement is not logical or reasonable as you have so far discussed it. Given then that so many people are apparently misunderstanding you, a good thing to do would probably be to clarify your position for all invovled.
LDSMusic483 Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 funny....you are doing what you claim i did...whatever...No I am following you to where you lead the discussion. It was you afterall who fixated on this one scripture after I had answered to all of them you listed.edited to correct...It was first Consig who looked at this scripture because none of the others remotely speak of praying for the dead. I added off of his reply and you proceeded to question whether or not we knew what "was" meant. If you would like to re-look at all your other scriptures, we would be more than obliged to do so. You just didn't question our understanding of simple verbiage in those verses, so we thought you didn't really like them as much as this one.
Servant Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 No I am following you to where you lead the discussion. It was you afterall who fixated on this one scripture after I had answered to all of them you listed.edited to correct...It was first Consig who looked at this scripture because none of the others remotely speak of praying for the dead. I added off of his reply and you proceeded to question whether or not we knew what "was" meant. If you would like to re-look at all your other scriptures, we would be more than obliged to do so. You just didn't question our understanding of simple verbiage in those verses, so we thought you didn't really like them as much as this one.yeah that is what YOU say......kthe souls of the dead detained in purgatory can be helped by the suffrages of the living ~St. Gregory the Great~In the book of the maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. even if it were nowhere at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the dead has also its place ~St. Augustine~
maklelan Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 yeah that is what YOU say......kthe souls of the dead detained in purgatory can be helped by the suffrages of the living ~St. Gregory the Great~In the book of the maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. even if it were nowhere at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the dead has also its place ~St. Augustine~Yeah, we also believe the dead can be helped, which is why Christ preached to them, but that's something entirely separate from appealing to the righteous dead to mediate between us and God. You never responded to my comments. Would you like to, or have you ceded that argument?
LDSMusic483 Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 yeah that is what YOU say......kthe souls of the dead detained in purgatory can be helped by the suffrages of the living ~St. Gregory the Great~In the book of the maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. even if it were nowhere at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the dead has also its place ~St. Augustine~So a call to a apocryphal book (pre-christ) and then individuals outside of the bible. Not working for me, sorry. Remember, when you make a claim that your doctrine has more biblical evidence, you should stick to the bible for your sources, and books which everyone agree's should be in the bible.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.