S
someotherguy
Guest
Well, you’re the one who asked.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rtconstant
Guest
So, you don’t believe in eternal life so no one is in Heaven. So if you just go into the void when your body dies what do you think Jesus saved you from?If they’re alive, then how did they get to Heaven?
Dead people don’t talk, that’s biology. As to the Rich Man he was in Gehenna, and no I don’t think Heaven and Gehenna are the same do you?Well, I’m afraid they’re all dead. Is where the Rich Man went really your idea of Heaven?
I should take your word on this based on what?A real Christian wouldn’t believe in it in the first place.
Based on?Because it’s Unbiblical, it’s heretical, and denies the sufficience of Christ’s atonement.
Once more you base all of this on what?Because millions of people are being deceived by the Devil through these appearances.
You got nothing. Gotcha.It would be if you knew anything about the account of the events on the Mt of Transfiguration.
Actually that’s exactly what they say. Its up to you demonstrate how that the Scriptures plain meaning here is not correct.None of which say that we are saved by baptism.
Your reasoning?In fact, the passage you cited from 1 Peter even tells us that it’s symbolic.
Correct, I do believe in Sacred Scripture. You however, are not Sacred Scripture.Because you claim to believe God’s word.
S
someotherguy
Guest
I can’t imagine where you got that idea.So, you don’t believe in eternal life so no one is in Heaven. So if you just go into the void when your body dies what do you think Jesus saved you from?
Really? The Bible says that Lazarus died in the very verse before it records him talking.Dead people don’t talk, that’s biology. As to the Rich Man he was in Gehenna, and no I don’t think Heaven and Gehenna are the same do you?
Based on the fact that it denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.I should take your word on this based on what?
On the fact that it requires men to suffer to purge themselves of their own sins when the Bible says that Christ’s atonement is the only means of cleansing from sin.Based on?
Based on the fact that the Bible says that we’re not to have any contact with the dead.Once more you base all of this on what?
I’ve got the word of God. I guess you consider that “nothing”.You got nothing. Gotcha.
No, that’s not what they say at all. In fact, I’ve already demonstrated that the 1 Peter passage shows that it’s only symbolic.Actually that’s exactly what they say.
The fact that the Greek says so.Your reasoning?
No, I’m not. Neither is your church, your pope or your manmade traditions.Correct, I do believe in Sacred Scripture. You however, are not Sacred Scripture.
D
dandn5000
Guest
May I ask where that assertion was made?No, I’m not. Neither is your church, your pope or your manmade traditions.
S
someotherguy
Guest
Same place you found the assertion that I am scripture, I guess.May I ask where that assertion was made?
R
rtconstant
Guest
From you. You said that no one is alive in Heaven this is a denial of eternal life.I can’t imagine where you got that idea.
His body did die however, he, Abraham and rich man all seem to be alive and kickin’ in the afterlife.Really? The Bible says that Lazarus died in the very verse before it records him talking.
How so?Based on the fact that it denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.
So those scriptures are incorrect?On the fact that it requires men to suffer to purge themselves of their own sins when the Bible says that Christ’s atonement is the only means of cleansing from sin.
Then why does the Bible ask us to pray for them?Based on the fact that the Bible says that we’re not to have any contact with the dead.
No, I just consider your word without any sort of Biblical, rational, historical, or Traditional support to be nothing. As you still seem reluctant to provide any of the above I’ll assume that means that you still have nothing on the subject.I’ve got the word of God. I guess you consider that “nothing”.
No you have not.No, that’s not what they say at all. In fact, I’ve already demonstrated that the 1 Peter passage shows that it’s only symbolic.
I know you hate when we make these requests for proof but could you demonstrate that?The fact that the Greek says so.
True, The Church is the just the “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) and it gave us the Bible. It also true that the Pope is the successor of Peter not the Bible. I don’t why you brought that up since no one has claimed that he is. You do realize that the Bible itself is one of the “manmade traditions” of the Church right?No, I’m not. Neither is your church, your pope or your manmade traditions.
S
someotherguy
Guest
No, that isn’t a denial of eternal life, that’s a denial of the idea that those in Heaven are physically alive.From you. You said that no one is alive in Heaven this is a denial of eternal life.
First of all, thank you for admitting that he died. That’s a big step.His body did die however, he, Abraham and rich man all seem to be alive and kickin’ in the afterlife.
Second, you seem to be intent on bringing up the Rich Man. Does this mean that you believe you can pray to people in Hell, too?
By stating that, even after one is born again and forgiven by Christ’s atonement, he must still go and suffer to be rid of his sins.How so?
No, they’re non-existent. There are no scriptures that state that men go to some place after death to purge their sins.So those scriptures are incorrect?
It doesn’t.Then why does the Bible ask us to pray for them?
Like I said, I gave you God’s word. I guess that means you think God’s word is “nothing”.No, I just consider your word without any sort of Biblical, rational, historical, or Traditional support to be nothing. As you still seem reluctant to provide any of the above I’ll assume that means that you still have nothing on the subject.
No you have not.
Actually, I already have. In fact, dandn500 got so mad that he couldn’t refute it, that he called me a liar.I know you hate when we make these requests for proof but could you demonstrate that?
No. In fact, the vast majority of the books that make up the Bible were written long before Christ established the church.You do realize that the Bible itself is one of the “manmade traditions” of the Church right?
M
mercygate
Guest
The IBS [Protestant/ecumenical] Greek New Testament specifically notes that “antitypon” in 1 Peter 3 looks back to Noah’s ark, which “points to” [antitypon] the water of baptism.Well, you’re the one who asked.
In Hebrews 9:24 the word “antitypa” refers to the “holy places made with human hands” that are “antitypa” or figures of the true. In this same sense, the ark is the “antitypon” of the true baptism.
D
dandn5000
Guest
Excuse me?Actually, I already have. In fact, dandn500 got so mad that he couldn’t refute it, that he called me a liar.
I want you to point to one instance, ever, where I have referred to you as a liar. The closest you will ever come is where I told you that I was not going to take your word for the definition of that Greek word, and that is only because I do not know you, I do not know what kind of credentials you have and, if you have any, whether they actually mean anything or not, and in any case I am debating with you. Would you take my word for it if I said that some people respected what I had to say, that even though you didn’t understand it that I did and that I was right? No, you wouldn’t. You would find a second opinion, one that you knew well and that you trusted. After all, how easy would it be for me to come up with some piece of nonsense and pass it off as the truth if you didn’t have any idea what any of it meant? It’s the same here. It’s not that I have any proof that you are not being truthful, its that I don’t have any proof that you are being truthful. Therefore, I am not going to store everything in this debate by what you said on that matter.
I am perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me, but do not put words in my mouth. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve lost any respect that I had for you.
S
someotherguy
Guest
So, what is your background in the study of Greek?Excuse me?
I want you to point to one instance, ever, where I have referred to you as a liar. The closest you will ever come is where I told you that I was not going to take your word for the definition of that Greek word, and that is only because I do not know you, I do not know what kind of credentials you have and, if you have any, whether they actually mean anything or not, and in any case I am debating with you. Would you take my word for it if I said that some people respected what I had to say, that even though you didn’t understand it that I did and that I was right? No, you wouldn’t. You would find a second opinion, one that you knew well and that you trusted. After all, how easy would it be for me to come up with some piece of nonsense and pass it off as the truth if you didn’t have any idea what any of it meant? It’s the same here. It’s not that I have any proof that you are not being truthful, its that I don’t have any proof that you are being truthful. Therefore, I am not going to store everything in this debate by what you said on that matter.
I am perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me, but do not put words in my mouth. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve lost any respect that I had for you.
D
dandn5000
Guest
Absolutely none, which is exactly why I’m not going to take the word of somebody that I don’t know and that I have no reason to believe knows what he’s talking about. How am I supposed to know if you’re telling the truth or not?So, what is your background in the study of Greek?
S
someotherguy
Guest
Exactly.Absolutely none
R
rtconstant
Guest
No one denied that they were physically dead. Nor did you specify that was your intention. You said they were dead and you were and are still wrong.No, that isn’t a denial of eternal life, that’s a denial of the idea that those in Heaven are physically alive.
Correction his body died just as you and I are dying. After death however he inherited eternal life a state much superior to our current state.First of all, thank you for admitting that he died. That’s a big step.
Correction, you seem hung up on the rich man. I don’t know why but whatever. I only mentioned him because he was part of the story you keep bringing him up though.Second, you seem to be intent on bringing up the Rich Man. Does this mean that you believe you can pray to people in Hell, too?
Again, you have provided verses that disagree. This is also the ancient Tradition. You offer nothing other than your opinion in opposition.By stating that, even after one is born again and forgiven by Christ’s atonement, he must still go and suffer to be rid of his sins.
Incorrect, read them again. You disagreeing with them does not make them go away.No, they’re non-existent. There are no scriptures that state that men go to some place after death to purge their sins.
Correction, I and others have given you scripture. You have offered nothing but your own opinions without any backing. As has been stated to you countless times. You saying something doesn’t make it Scripture.Like I said, I gave you God’s word. I guess that means you think God’s word is “nothing”.
So no I think Scripture has great value but your opinion especially as you refuse to support yourself is “nothing”.
Correction, you threw out a greek word and offered nothing to support or suggest your apparent opinion of its implications. Also dandn5000 didn’t appear to be angry at all he simply pointed out that by itself it meant nothing and that you had offered up nothing to suggest you even know what it means. We have no reason to think you know what what you’re talking about. So no you are not necessarily a liar but you aren’t really doing anything to suggest your honest either.Actually, I already have. In fact, dandn500 got so mad that he couldn’t refute it, that he called me a liar.
Oh yes the OT books were all around however, the OT books that Christians consider inspired were established by The Church and all of the NT is not only selected by The Church but is a product of The Church.No. In fact, the vast majority of the books that make up the Bible were written long before Christ established the church.
Stephen168
New member
Actually, I already have. In fact, dandn500 got so mad that he couldn’t refute it, that he called me a liar.
.
Someotherguy:Excuse me?
I want you to point to one instance, ever, where I have referred to you as a liar.
Have you answered the question? Or did you lie?
S
someotherguy
Guest
Nope. I didn’t lie and he still has not shown that I have.Someotherguy:
Have you answered the question? Or did you lie?
S
someotherguy
Guest
Well then, I guess the Bible and I are wrong.No one denied that they were physically dead. Nor did you specify that was your intention. You said they were dead and you were and are still wrong.
Actually, you’re the one who kept bringing up the Rich Man. The only time I ever mentioned him was in response to your comments about him.Correction, you seem hung up on the rich man. I don’t know why but whatever.
I only mentioned him because he was part of the story you keep bringing him up though.
How can they be a product of the church when the church wasn’t even around until hundreds or, in some cases thousands, of years after the fact?Oh yes the OT books were all around however, the OT books that Christians consider inspired were established by The Church and all of the NT is not only selected by The Church but is a product of The Church.
Stephen168
New member
Where did dandn500 lie as you claimed?Nope. I didn’t lie and he still has not shown that I have.
S
someotherguy
Guest
Where did I claim that he lied?Where did dandn500 lie as you claimed?
M
mercygate
Guest
What rtconstant said was that the OT books were ‘established’ by the Church. Perhaps a poor choice of words. The OT books of the Septuagint were ratified as canon at the same time the NT books were named (from the pool of hundreds of spurious “gospels” and “epistles”) as canon. The books of the New Testament, as you know, were all produced by the Church, in the Church, for the Church. Nevertheless, as you know, seven of those books had a hard time passing the standard of being written by an apostle, or someone close to an apostle, of being consistent with the rest of Scripture, and of conforming to the teaching of the Church. But, of course, you know all that. I write for those who may not have your learning.Well then, I guess the Bible and I are wrong.
Actually, you’re the one who kept bringing up the Rich Man. The only time I ever mentioned him was in response to your comments about him.
I only mentioned him because he was part of the story you keep bringing him up though.
How can they be a product of the church when the church wasn’t even around until hundreds or, in some cases thousands, of years after the fact?
The Councils that published the canon (same canon, two times) were Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. They were councils of the Catholic Church. The proceedings were sent to the Bishop of Rome for final ratification.
D
dandn5000
Guest
I think that Stephen meant where did I call you a liar.Where did I claim that he lied?
I didn’t, for what it’s worth.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.