|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 10, 2009 15:44:04 GMT -5
Okay, so we are using KJV or NKJV right?
Then, I'm aloud to use the original KJV too okay? (the original "authorized" KJV contained the "apocrypha").
Now, first of all, it is quite difficult, if not impossible to "prove" anything by scripture alone. However, if that is the type of debate that you would like, that is fine. (I'm not sure how that is a debate though.) Would that merely consist of us posting bits of scripture, then reading them? Or can we interject our opinions on the meaning of the verse, or talk about the Greek/Hebrew words, Jewish history etc.? Can we use definitions from the dictionary, Church history, secular history, writings of the Church Fathers, and various other "evidence"?
I'll let you choose.
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 10, 2009 15:53:44 GMT -5
I borrowed this from your debate with Cepha.
A good place to begin. (unless you decide we're doing Bible only, then we can delete all this)
You said "When a man dies he either goes to Heaven or Hell".
Yes, but there IS something preceding that.
27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, (Hebrews 9)
After death, we do not go immediately to Heaven or Hell, we go immediately to "face judgement". Since everyone, whatever their eventual destiny, "faces judgement" we could say that judgement itself is a condition/place after death that is neither heaven nor hell. Do you concur?
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by ezekiel33 on Apr 10, 2009 16:36:26 GMT -5
Okay, so we are using KJV or NKJV right? Then, I'm aloud to use the original KJV too okay? (the original "authorized" KJV contained the "apocrypha"). Now, first of all, it is quite difficult, if not impossible to "prove" anything by scripture alone. However, if that is the type of debate that you would like, that is fine. (I'm not sure how that is a debate though.) Would that merely consist of us posting bits of scripture, then reading them? Or can we interject our opinions on the meaning of the verse, or talk about the Greek/Hebrew words, Jewish history etc.? Can we use definitions from the dictionary, Church history, secular history, writings of the Church Fathers, and various other "evidence"? I'll let you choose. peace teresa Yes we are using the Bible only, and you can give your opinion what any particular verse may mean but if I see you stretching the scripture to force it to mean something it doesn't I will let you know. You can use the Apocrypha, but I dont I will be convince by anything it says. You may also use church history, and writing of the church Father as long and this history or writing are based on their interpretation of a scriptural passage and not just something they have dreamed up in their head. Secular History should not be brought up seeing as a carnal mind cannot understand the scriptures, and the object is to show me using scripture that purgatory exists. |
|
|
|
Post by ezekiel33 on Apr 10, 2009 16:40:16 GMT -5
I borrowed this from your debate with Cepha. A good place to begin. (unless you decide we're doing Bible only, then we can delete all this) You said "When a man dies he either goes to Heaven or Hell". Yes, but there IS something preceding that. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, (Hebrews 9) After death, we do not go immediately to Heaven or Hell, we go immediately to "face judgement". Since everyone, whatever their eventual destiny, "faces judgement" we could say that judgement itself is a condition/place after death that is neither heaven nor hell. Do you concur? teresa You do not need to show me the word purgatory, just show me the teaching of it via scripture. Hebrews 9:27 does say we die once then are judged. However I am not convince that that means we are judged before we enter Heaven or Hell, just that we will not live 2 lives. We have 1 life to live and then we are judged. I believe the righteous are judged at the 2nd coming and the unrighteous at the whitwe throne Judgment , it is possible that we are all judged at the white throne judgment, but everyone will already know their fate by then any way. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 10, 2009 18:05:06 GMT -5
I just want to make sure I understand (I think you had a typo) did you mean " I won't be convinced by anything it says"?
But if we are using KJV, then I should be allowed to quote as authoritative, the apocrypha because it was in the original 1611 version.
Secular History is not necessarily "carnal", otherwise no Christian in good conscience could ever take a history class or read a history book! "Secular" just means a history of events including non-religious events like wars, culture, etc. It can include religious "events" as well. Many historians that have written accounts of the "Secular world" have been devout Christians.
Ok, so we are using the Bible(KJV) + our opinion+ writings of the Church Fathers + Church History. Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 10, 2009 18:14:37 GMT -5
38: So Judas gathered his host, and came into the city of Odollam, And when the seventh day came, they purified themselves, as the custom was, and kept the sabbath in the same place.
39: And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
40: Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
41: All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
42: Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
43: And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
44: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
45: And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
2 Maccabees 12 (KJV) Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this book was rightly removed from the Holy Scriptures, then you must accept it as being the Word of God. teresa |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 10, 2009 18:19:19 GMT -5
2: But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4: Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
(Malachi 3 KJV) |
|
|
|
Post by ezekiel33 on Apr 10, 2009 22:34:30 GMT -5
I just want to make sure I understand (I think you had a typo) did you mean " I won't be convinced by anything it says"? But if we are using KJV, then I should be allowed to quote as authoritative, the apocrypha because it was in the original 1611 version. Secular History is not necessarily "carnal", otherwise no Christian in good conscience could ever take a history class or read a history book! "Secular" just means a history of events including non-religious events like wars, culture, etc. It can include religious "events" as well. Many historians that have written accounts of the "Secular world" have been devout Christians. Ok, so we are using the Bible(KJV) + our opinion+ writings of the Church Fathers + Church History. Is that correct? 1) you are right I meant to say I would not be convince by anything written in the apocrypha. 2) sure the kjv our opinion of what certain verses mean and you can use the interpretation of the church fathers on certain passages if you choose , not that i would agree with their interpretation. 3) a history or science book is not the word of God, leave secular opinion out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by ezekiel33 on Apr 10, 2009 22:37:17 GMT -5
38: So Judas gathered his host, and came into the city of Odollam, And when the seventh day came, they purified themselves, as the custom was, and kept the sabbath in the same place.
39: And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
40: Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
41: All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
42: Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
43: And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
44: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
45: And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
2 Maccabees 12 (KJV) Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this book was rightly removed from the Holy Scriptures, then you must accept it as being the Word of God. teresa I will accept this story as true, and even though it was noble for Judas to pray for the sins of the dead, it in no way means that God would actually forgive their sins. |
|
|
|
Post by ezekiel33 on Apr 10, 2009 22:39:08 GMT -5
2: But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4: Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
(Malachi 3 KJV) If someone has been taught this has something to do with purgatory, I guess I could see why you might think it does. However the scripture itself by itself in itself does not lend itself to that belief. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 12, 2009 18:38:52 GMT -5
It seems my ban has been lifted if you would like to continue int he morning  |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 13, 2009 16:17:17 GMT -5
Sorry it took me so long. We were out of town visiting family.
So where were we?
1. You have given no justification for not being convinced "by anything written in the apocrypha". You do realize that the whole of Christianity accepted those books as the Word of God until the Reformation. Even if you don't consider yourself a "Protestant" you have to ask yourself a very important question--are these books the Word of God or not? If they are, and you close your ears and refuse to heed their words, then are you practicing what you preach?
After all, if indeed these books are the Word of God, then it is "man made traditions" that have deleted them and removed them from the canon of scripture.
If you do not have "ears to hear" what is written in them, then of course you aren't going to be convinced by " the scripture itself by itself in itself " concerning purgatory, or any other doctrine they support.
Before a house is built, the foundation must be laid, ok? Then we can talk about purgatory some more.
So, do you accept the Apocrypha as the Word of God or not?
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 13, 2009 16:28:31 GMT -5
I'm so sorry about all of the identity confusion. I'm not sure right now if watchman and ezekiel are the same or who I'm debating, but I'm going to just continue on ok?
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 13, 2009 17:23:12 GMT -5
I'm so sorry about all of the identity confusion. I'm not sure right now if watchman and ezekiel are the same or who I'm debating, but I'm going to just continue on ok? teresa Yes teresa I am watchman and ezekiel, you may also know my as onwingsaseagles depending on what other forums you are on. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 13, 2009 18:04:30 GMT -5
Ok, I thought Ezekiel was your wife, but I guess I was confused.
So, do you have a response to the debate?
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 13, 2009 19:23:38 GMT -5
Read and respond to reply #s 8 and 9 that should put us back on track.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 14, 2009 12:29:17 GMT -5
I did read 8 and 9 and respond. Didn't you read this?
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 14, 2009 23:30:31 GMT -5
Sure use the Apocrypha, if that is the only way you can prove your point. For the sake of this discussion I will accept it as truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 15, 2009 15:57:30 GMT -5
Ok, so we are agreed that the Word of God includes the Apocrypha.
So, is this debate simply about me proving purgatory exists (which would really be more like a thesis or something) or is it a Debate? Aren't you trying to prove that it doesn't exist? (I'm kind of waiting on a rebuttal from scripture here)
I gave a scripture verse, but you haven't yet.
Using scripture, please give a rebuttal.
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 15, 2009 20:39:59 GMT -5
Ok, so we are agreed that the Word of God includes the Apocrypha. So, is this debate simply about me proving purgatory exists (which would really be more like a thesis or something) or is it a Debate? Aren't you trying to prove that it doesn't exist? (I'm kind of waiting on a rebuttal from scripture here) I gave a scripture verse, but you haven't yet. Using scripture, please give a rebuttal. peace teresa No I do not need to prove it doesn't exist, there is no reason for me or you or anyone to assume it exist. The onus is on you to prove it does exist not for me to prove it doesn't. (Just a side thought, are you claiming that the reason the ''apocrypha'' was deleted is because it teaches purgatory and the protestants didn't like the belief of purgatory so they deleted those books? I find that very hard to believe. Personally if Purgatory was scripture I would have no problem believing it. I don't believe in it because the scriptures do not teach it) So as I said from the start I need not disprove it the fact it is absent in scripture is proof enough for me. Prove it does exist if you can. Using scripture of course the apocrypha if you insist. |
|
