For "someotherguy"

[someotherguy]

I think that Stephen meant where did I call you a liar.

I didn’t, for what it’s worth.

You said you didn’t believe that I was telling the truth. I don’t see any difference between the two.

You then implied a couple more times that I was being dishonest.

 

[someotherguy]

What rtconstant said was that the OT books were ‘established’ by the Church.

Boy, I’ll bet that came as a big shock to the Jews who had been studying them for 1600 years.

 

[Stephen168]

Note the use of the word,* ἀντίτυπον*. Pronouced anti-tupon, it literally means “a representative”, not a literal thing.

αντιτυπον adjective - nominative singular neuter
antitupon an-teet’-oo-pon: corresponding (antitype), i.e. a representative, counterpart – (like) figure (whereunto).

It also means a corresponding or counterpart; as in comparing. As Noah was saved by water; we are now saved by baptism.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Corresponding to that

King James Bible
The like figure whereunto

American Standard Version
which also after a true likeness

Bible in Basic English
of which this is an image

Douay-Rheims Bible
Whereunto

English Revised Version
which also after a true likeness doth

 

[rtconstant]

Well then, I guess the Bible and I are wrong.

Nope just you.

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.

Wrong again, I just stated the name as one of those in the story you asked me if where the Rich Man was my idea of Heaven, Then I answered you and you asked me why I brought him up. If you had no point then how about letting him go?

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 NT wasn’t around until thousands of years after the Church? Well, while that is probably the best argument I’ve ever heard against Solo Scriptura rest assured that the books of the NT were all written within the first century.

 

[someotherguy]

Nope just you.

And, since my answer was based on scripture, you must also believe that scripture is wong.

Wrong again, I just stated the name as one of those in the story you asked me if where the Rich Man was my idea of Heaven, Then I answered you and you asked me why I brought him up. If you had no point then how about letting him go?

Right. You brought him up and I mentioned him in response t your comments. Just like I said.

The NT wasn’t around until thousands of years after the Church?

It’s late, so I’m going to assume that you just misread and are not playing a jmcrae.

Once again, the church was not established until hundreds and, in some cases, thousands, of years after tha books of the OT.

 

[dandn5000]

Personal attacks? Forgive me if I’m missing something, but I didn’t see any of those floating around this thread. Certainly, Tantum ergo may disagree with you, but he wasn’t insulting you.

Care to elaborate on that? Last time I checked, we were promised eternal life with Christ in Heaven. That means that we are alive, and therefore not dead. Our bodies may be rotting in a hole somewhere, dead to us, but our souls are not.

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re talking about. A casual poke around Google of the term resulted in this, which to my admittedly non-expert knowledge says what I said - that our souls enter Heaven(or hell) and our bodies are dead to us until the second coming of Christ. As I understand it, therefore, the “dead in Christ” are those whose bodies are dead on earth. Makes no mention of their soul, merely their bodies.

I’m sorry?

I was merely stating that I wasn’t familiar with that term. I haven’t yet read Thessalonians, and so wasn’t sure what “the dead in Christ” were.

I’m sorry if I bruised your ego by saying that I didn’t get it. I’m quite sure that you are highly respected by those that you visit and that they deem you to be highly knowledgeable on the topic.

I’m sorry, but I don’t have a biblical scholar onsite at the moment, and I’m (understandably, I hope) a bit wary to just take your word for it.

I’m sorry, but I don’t have a biblical scholar onsite at the moment, and I’m (understandably, I hope) a bit wary to just take your word for it.

Actually, I already have. In fact, dandn500 got so mad that he couldn’t refute it, that he called me a liar.

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.

Here I have every post that I have made on this thread, up to where I originally refuted your claim that I called you a liar. I fail to see where this particular insult came about. I did question your assertions, as is what we are supposed to do in a debate. The point where I allegedly called you a liar was not as you make it out to be. I merely stated that, seeing as I do not have knowledge of Greek of my own and because i do not know who you are and what kind of qualifications you have, that I would withhold judgement on the definition of that particular word until I hear one way or the other from somebody whose credentials I can trust. I cannot trust yours because you have given me absolutely no reason other than “I know what I’m talking about” to trust your judgement.

The so-called implications I allegedly made that you were being dishonest were not so; I only stated that I didn’t have a solid reason to believe that you were telling the truth. Those statements mean two totally different things: one means that I believe you to be dishonest, the other that I believe that I can’t be certain you are being honest.

 

[dandn5000]

And, since my answer was based on scripture, you must also believe that scripture is wong.

Actually, this is an opinion. Catholics obviously don’t feel that your answers are Scripture-based(or that they are taken out of context), seeing as we’re having this debate.

Therefore, we believe that you are incorrect. The Scriptures, not so much.

 

[someotherguy]

Actually, this is an opinion. Catholics obviously don’t feel that your answers are Scripture-based .

Don’t care.

 

[rtconstant]

And, since my answer was based on scripture, you must also believe that scripture is wong.

Nope, there is no indication that your beliefs are based Scripture. Since you refuse to supply any I’ll just assume that you are aware of that.

Right. You brought him up and I mentioned him in response t your comments. Just like I said.

Sorry your attempt at distraction from the point didn’t work. Still go nothing huh?

It’s late, so I’m going to assume that you just misread and are not playing a jmcrae.

Once again, the church was not established until hundreds and, in some cases, thousands, of years after tha books of the OT.

Ahh, I see you were saying The Church wasn’t started until hundreds or possibly thousands or years latter. Which is equally as strange a statement. So its your belief that Jesus and the Apostles died and there was no Church until several centuries latter? You will be surprised to know that besides references to the Church in the NT we having letters and essays from Christians from the first century on. No rest assured that The Church has been alive, well and uninterrupted since 33 AD.

 

[Stephen168]

You said you didn’t believe that I was telling the truth. I don’t see any difference between the two.

You then implied a couple more times that I was being dishonest.

There is a difference between telling a lie and something not true. If you were to tell us that Maine was the most northern of the 48 continuous states, you might believe it to be true, but it would not be true. I would not think you were a liar, just ignorant of US geography.

You are asking us to believe whatever you tell us with no proof. Your inability to put together a rational argument doesn’t give me any confidence to take your word on any point of fact without proof.

 

[someotherguy]

Nope, there is no indication that your beliefs are based Scripture. Since you refuse to supply any I’ll just assume that you are aware of that.

I would think that actually naming the scriptures the way I did would be a good indication.

Ahh, I see you were saying The Church wasn’t started until hundreds or possibly thousands or years latter.

As near as I can tell, the church was started on Pentcost, and the last book of the OT was written roughly 400BC, so that’s 430 years right there.

Which is equally as strange a statement. So its your belief that Jesus and the Apostles died and there was no Church until several centuries latter?

Not at all. Christ died and was resurrected and promised that forty days later, He would send the Holy Spirit to Jeruslem to establish the church. The Apostles were very much alive and very much a part of that church.

You will be surprised to know that besides references to the Church in the NT we having letters and essays from Christians from the first century on. No rest assured that The Church has been alive, well and uninterrupted since 33 AD.

Doesn’t surprise me a bit. In fact, it sounds just like what I teach in our new believers’ class.

 

[someotherguy]

You are asking us to believe whatever you tell us with no proof.

Actually, I gave you proof. I cited the text exactly as it appears.

 

[Stephen168]

Actually, I gave you proof. I cited the text exactly as it appears.

Translate it and give links to prove your translation

 

[rtconstant]

As near as I can tell, the church was started on Pentcost, and the last book of the OT was written roughly 400BC, so that’s 430 years right there.

I would agree with the Pentecost date as the birthday of The Church. Typically 124 BC is the date of the latest book in the OT or at least by that time since events up to that point are described.

 

[Stephen168]

Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13 condemn praying to the dead. They do not make any distinction between “saints” or not saints.

Please quote and explain these verses, because my Bible doesn’t say that.

 

[historyb]

Please quote and explain these verses, because my Bible doesn’t say that.

**Leviticus 20:27

**27 “Men and women among you who act as mediums or who consult the spirits of the dead must be put to death by stoning. They are guilty of a capital offense.”

Deuteronomy 18:10-13

10 For example, never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering.a] And do not let your people practice fortune-telling, or use sorcery, or interpret omens, or engage in witchcraft, 11 or cast spells, or function as mediums or psychics, or call forth the spirits of the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord. It is because the other nations have done these detestable things that the Lord your God will drive them out ahead of you. 13 But you must be blameless before the Lord your God.

I have to agree with Stephen here.

 

[mercygate]

Mornn’, team. Since someotherguy is no longer with us, how about we pray the Angelus for him – and for the people he instructs in his “new Christians” classes (God help them), and for his seminary studies.

Lord, have Mercy.

 

[MementoMori3283]

Yes. Do you know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant or the different sets of laws?

I do. I am familiar with all the covenants. Noahide, Davidic, etc., etc.,

My point is that you pull a verse here or a verse there, like most non-denom and denominational people do, to claim your Biblical authority, denying the fullness of what you have been given.

If you were, say, a Jew for Jesus, you would maintain the Noahide Laws and pluck out these verses:

*Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.*

Mt 5:17-18

Interestingly enough, the verse before these is applicable in other threads - the solas perhaps

*Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. *

It appears Jesus asks us to work so that we may glorify God. Hmmm

 

[ibkc]

Mornn’, team. Since someotherguy is no longer with us, how about we pray the Angelus for him – and for the people he instructs in his “new Christians” classes (God help them), and for his seminary studies.

Lord, have Mercy.

I’m in on that. I prayed for him last night, but this is a guy who probably needs all the help he can be given.

 

[rtconstant]

**Leviticus 20:27

**27 “Men and women among you who act as mediums or who consult the spirits of the dead must be put to death by stoning. They are guilty of a capital offense.”

Deuteronomy 18:10-13

10 For example, never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering.a] And do not let your people practice fortune-telling, or use sorcery, or interpret omens, or engage in witchcraft, 11 or cast spells, or function as mediums or psychics, or call forth the spirits of the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord. It is because the other nations have done these detestable things that the Lord your God will drive them out ahead of you. 13 But you must be blameless before the Lord your God.

I have to agree with Stephen here.

But what do either of these verses have to do with the Communion of the Saints? No one casts spells or becomes possessed by a Saint. No one summons up the dead to divine the future. That is what these verses are talking about and they state so explicitly.

The Communion of the Saints is simply an acknowledgement that the body of Christ can not be cut into parts. The Church is always in communion with Him and with each other regardless of the state of their physical bodies. My friends can pray for me and the Saints who have gone on can pray for me. No more, no less.