So interpretations abound.

What makes baptism for the dead so much less palatable than other interpretations?

@ Chukwudi

One more question: do you distinguish between purgatory and baptism for the dead and, if so, how?

@enigma

As u rightly stated the RCC do not condone baptism of the dead.but that does not explain 1. Cor 15:29 there paul explicitly alludes to baptism of the dead to prove the ressurection of the dead.

It would be quite preposterous for an apostle of Paul's standing to resort to pagan practices to justify christian beleifs.it is so obvious from that verse that baptism of the dead was carried out by christians of the first century.

Catholics are enjoined to pray for the dead so as to free those who happensto be in purgatory.

Pastor AIO:

None of this makes any sense. I don't even know what you're trying to say, or if you are actually addressing anything that I've said. The Apostles spread christianity orally. NT came later. The apostles and their converts formed a body known as the church.

I'm arguing against some upstarts using the bible to attack the body formed by the apostles and their converts, the church.

i am very much surprise and really at your statement.
I cant see any reason for the notion that the apostles spread christianity Orally and their teaching were all oral or that they spread christianity without writhing letters.

It definitly sounds strange, the NT bible is repleted with references to the apostles sending letters to churches.

For instance colossians 4:15;16 is a reference to the later apostle paul sent to the colossians and he ask them to read the EPISTLE he sent to the laodeceans.

2cor 1:13 is a statment made by paul to the letter he wrote to the corinths.

There is even a scripture paul complain of writing lots of letters with his own hands.

Infact the sense in what you said is actually what is wrong.

what then is the meaning of the word EPISTLE?

tobechi74:


the catholic church compild d bible .years b4 ur general overseer was born. They translatd d various writing on d scrols into difrent languages.

dont get things wrong.

The issue is that AIO said that the apostles wrote no letters, that they thought orally.

Am of the opinion that they did.

on idolatory. Pentecostals see some catholics bow before images and icons and they conclude that the RCC is apostate. They quote the first of the ten commandments to back up their point. The RCC has always denied this.

If some one denies that he is worshiping what you say he is worshiping, i dont think its necesary to insist he is doing it! This is becos i dont think there is anything like 'unconscious worship'. To worship, you have to RECOGNISE the supremacy of the deity you are worshiping and also ACCEPT it as god. Which means, you are not ashamed of it. Denying worshiping it, would nullify the deity-worshiper relationship. Jesus knew this so well thats why he warned 'dont deny me, not even in public...i will deny you in heaven'. He will deny you not he wants tit for tat but becos the relationship is not there.

NB: the ACCEPT and RECOGNISE above are conscious activities.

truthislight:

dont get things wrong.

The issue is that AIO said that the apostles wrote no letters, that they thought orally.

Am of the opinion that they did.

I beg your pardon. Could you please remind me of where I said that the apostles wrote no letters?

na wa fo morderators. Whats wrong with word the t1t for tat? Now he has disorganized my post by replacing the t1t with Bosom

truthislight:

i am very much surprise and really at your statement.
I cant see any reason for the notion that the apostles spread christianity Orally and their teaching were all oral or that they spread christianity without writhing letters.

It definitly sounds strange, the NT bible is repleted with references to the apostles sending letters to churches.

For instance colossians 4:15;16 is a reference to the later apostle paul sent to the colossians and he ask them to read the EPISTLE he sent to the laodeceans.

2cor 1:13 is a statment made by paul to the letter he wrote to the corinths.

There is even a scripture paul complain of writing lots of letters with his own hands.

Infact the sense in what you said is actually what is wrong.

what then is the meaning of the word EPISTLE?

Sending letters where? To churches?

Well have you got any examples of apostles sending letters to non-churches with the purpose of 'spreading the word'.

Like I said, First came the Church and Then came the writings.

souldust: on idolatory. Pentecostals see some catholics bow before images and icons and they conclude that the RCC is apostate. They quote the first of the ten commandments to back up their point. The RCC has always denied this.

The catholic church denies anything that could be a potential obstacle to their union with the wider Christian community. I was once a catholic, in fact for the better part of my earlier youth. The moment I saw all the errors, worshipping and idolising the pope, bowing before statues, venerating the dead, twisting the word of God, I was out.

If some one denies that he is worshiping what you say he is worshiping, i dont think its necesary to insist he is doing it! This is becos i dont think there is anything like 'unconscious worship'. To worship, you have to RECOGNISE the supremacy of the deity you are worshiping and also ACCEPT it as god. Which means, you are not ashamed of it. Denying worshiping it, would nullify the deity-worshiper relationship. Jesus knew this so well thats why he warned 'dont deny me, not even in public...i will deny you in heaven'. He will deny you not he wants tit for tat but becos the relationship is not there.

The Muslims deny that ISLAM is a religion of violence, yet that is all we see on a 24/7 basis, actions speak louder than words.

Just because you deny something does not mean you are right.

Why do Catholics have to add Mary and all the dead saints to their system of worship, is Jesus not enough ?

still on idolatory, the first commandment is always quoted by pentecostals.

A catholic once told me, that when they bow before an image and icon, their mind is not on the image but on god in heaven. Just as the jews, when burn incense and offering in front of the ark (an image made obeying God's instructions. It had the image of angels, beings in heaven. It also made of wood and gold, materials on earth), are not worshiping the ark but God who 'is enthroned above the winged creatures'.

frosbel:
The Muslims deny that ISLAM is a religion of violence, yet that is all we see on a 24/7 basis, actions speaks louder than word.

you mentioned violence. It doesnt have to be conscious to be violence whereas it must be conscious to be worship. I mean, worship by its nature is a conscious activity.

chukwudi44: @enigma

As u rightly stated the RCC do not condone baptism of the dead.but that does not explain 1. Cor 15:29 there paul explicitly alludes to baptism of the dead to prove the ressurection of the dead.

It would be quite preposterous for an apostle of Paul's standing to resort to pagan practices to justify christian beleifs.it is so obvious from that verse that baptism of the dead was carried out by christians of the first century.

Catholics are enjoined to pray for the dead so as to free those who happensto be in purgatory.

Oga Chukwudi

Do you see the problem now, nna?

If you say that the RCC does not "condone" baptism for the dead ----- yet at the same time you claim that the apostles taught and practised it --- that means you are saying that the RCC has departed from apostolic doctrine and practice. Is it not?

Of course I knew that the RCC does not "condone" baptism for the dead ---- something that was pronounced heresy from the earliest times, even from the time of the Church Fathers.

frosbel:

The catholic church denies anything that could be a potential obstacle to their union with the wider Christian community. I was once a catholic, in fact for the better part of my earlier youth. The moment I saw all the errors, worshipping and idolising the pope, bowing before statues, venerating the dead, twisting the word of God, I was out.

Nawa for you O frosbel. Catholics do not worship or idolize the pope. Never!

Secondly, when we "bow" before statues, we bow not at the statue but at the image and presence of God generated in our minds. Real Catholics are very conscious of the difference and careful not to mistake it for worship of a statue. The presence of the statue is only symbolical and helps to provide a focus it is not a substitution for God.

Thirdly, if you truly understood the Catholic faith, you would see that we only venerate the eternally living, or people whose deeds closely mirrored the life of Christ.

frosbel:
Why do Catholics have to add Mary and all the dead saints to their system of worship, is Jesus not enough ?

To this I ask simply, why not?
Ask yourself: how many books in the bible were actually written by Jesus Christ?
Ask also: if our faith, all Christian faith, is passed down by followers of Christ, what is the difference between the honour you unconsciously do Paul the apostle and the honour I do Mary the mother of Christ?

Pastor AIO:

None of this makes any sense. I don't even know what you're trying to say, or if you are actually addressing anything that I've said. The Apostles spread christianity orally. NT came later. The apostles and their converts formed a body known as the church.

I'm arguing against some upstarts using the bible to attack the body formed by the apostles and their converts, the church.

here it is.

Where you said that the apostles thought orally.

sir, unless i did not understand this write up. It seem to me that you are of the opinion that the apostles tought orally and that they wrote no letters as such the bible is exclusively the product of the catholics.
Peace

truthislight:

here it is.

Where you said that the apostles thought orally.

sir, unless i did not understand this write up. It seem to me that you are of the opinion that the apostles tought orally and that they wrote no letters as such the bible is exclusively the product of the catholics.
Peace

Apparently you did not understand the write up.

@enigma

I never said apostles practised baptism of the dead,Paul did and I was merely quoting him.

There is nothing in that passage that suggests paul was referring to a pagan practise.It has no precedent in the bible for an apostle to resort to pagan practises to justify christian beleifs

Ah, I see ---- was Paul a heretic then?

Or perhaps the interpretation/meaning of that passage is not as straightforward as you are assuming?

@ enigma

Can u please explain the logic behind an apostle resorting to using pagan practices to justify christian teachings

Pastor AIO:

Sending letters where? To churches?

Well have you got any examples of apostles sending letters to non-churches with the purpose of 'spreading the word'.

Like I said, First came the Church and Then came the writings.

my argument is that the christians of the apostles era hard already taken the words of the apostles that made up the NT as Gods word and as such did not need any other person to decide for them which is the words of the apostles that they had already taken as God's word.

This was not a stand that started 4centuries later.

This words of the apostles that was considered as God's word are the words that made the NT = NT bible.
1thessolonians 2:13.

All writers of the NT are apostles of Christ.

Other books have other none apostolic writers.

Just like the books of OT were written by prophets and livite only.

All what the canonization did is put a stamp on what was already in existence the words of the apostles that was already considered as the word of God and protected and recognised and not that it produce the bible. QED
peace

D P

chukwudi44: @ enigma

Can u please explain the logic behind an apostle resorting to using pagan practices to justify christian teachings

Apostle paul did not use any pegan teaching to explain any christian teaching.

You simply did not understand what he was saying.

@ Chukwudi44

Nna bros

I actually understand and respect the concern you are expressing here.

The viewpoint that the reference is to a practise of non-Christians is, like I said earlier, one of many viewpoints and is not undisputed. OK then, the reasoning behind it is based on the overall context of the circumstances both leading to and in which the letter was written ---- you had a very small Christian community; a very young Christian community; of very new Christians; who despite being Jews were surrounded heavily by and might themselves have submitted to pagan practices.

They had many questions on which they needed clarification and Paul was trying to explain so many different things to them using a range of arguments and techniques. The logic then goes that in those circumstances it is not far fetched for Paul to point to something with which they were familiar in order to make a point to them.

There are a number of challenge points to these logic and, to save time, I will point out a couple of them.

1. The opponents would say the apostle should have been clearer that he did not himself condone the practise or regard it as Christian.

2. The logic can only be sustained if it can be proved that there were indeed pagans around the Corinthians who did practise some form of washing or perhaps even "baptising" for the dead.

Pastor AIO:

Apparently you did not understand the write up.

I hope so

[/quote]53. truthislight: Quote Post

chukwudi44: @ enigma

Can u please explain the logic behind an apostle resorting to using pagan practices to justify christian teachings

Apostle paul did not use any pegan teaching to explain any christian teaching.

You simply did not understand what he was saying.[quote]

Since u understand y don't u explain it 2 me

[/quote[quote]my argument is that the christians of the apostles era hard already taken the words of the apostles that made up the NT as Gods word and as such did not need any other person to decide for them which is the words of the apostles that they had already taken as God's word.

This was not a stand that started 4centuries later.

This words of the apostles that was consider as God's are the words that made the NT = NT bible.
1thessolonians 2:13.

All writers of the NT are apostles of Christ.

All what the canonization did is put a stamp on what was already in existence the words of the apostles that was already considered as the word of God and not that it produce the bible. QED
peace

]

The fact remains that not only the books that were canonised were in circulation.Why don't u regard the authority of other uncanonised writings.

Besides the authourship of the gospels and some of other scriptures were delivered by oral tradition as these books were anonymous

[/quote[quote]my argument is that the christians of the apostles era hard already taken the words of the apostles that made up the NT as Gods word and as such did not need any other person to decide for them which is the words of the apostles that they had already taken as God's word.

This was not a stand that started 4centuries later.

This words of the apostles that was consider as God's are the words that made the NT = NT bible.
1thessolonians 2:13.

All writers of the NT are apostles of Christ.

All what the canonization did is put a stamp on what was already in existence the words of the apostles that was already considered as the word of God and not that it produce the bible. QED
peace

]

The fact remains that not only the books that were canonised were in circulation.Why don't u regard the authority of other uncanonised writings.

Besides the authourship of the gospels and some of other scriptures were delivered by oral tradition as these books were anonymous

truthislight:

my argument is that the christians of the apostles era hard already taken the words of the apostles that made up the NT as Gods word and as such did not need any other person to decide for them which is the words of the apostles that they had already taken as God's word.

This was not a stand that started 4centuries later.

This words of the apostles that was consider as God's are the words that made the NT = NT bible.
1thessolonians 2:13.

All writers of the NT are apostles of Christ.

All what the canonization did is put a stamp on what was already in existence the words of the apostles that was already considered as the word of God and not that it produce the bible. QED
peace

Okay, as long as you agree with me that the Church preceded the bible and that the bible was canonized by the Church.

Pastor AIO:

Okay, as long as you agree with me that the Church preceded the bible and that the bible was canonized by the Church.

sir, we know that the book of Acts of the apostles is christianity in the making as written by paul.

The book of art is christianity to the nations by paul.

The book of Arts is the detail of the exterblishment of the churches.

The first for books of the NT is the history and life of Jesus.

The book of matthew was completed by 41ce while the book of arts was completed by 61ce, so it is wrong to conclude that the NT bible came after the church.

Their was also a church in Jerusalem befor the other gentile churches was form.

The church started with christ on earth since he did the first gathering of christians.

The book of acts was written by luke and not paul.it is funny to say any of the books of the NT was written b4 the birth of the church.The church started on pentecost day 33 CE while the books of the NT came much later

The bible by definition is a collection of canonised scriptures.it implies that the bible never existed until the fourth century by the catholic church.the term bible and scriptures do not mean the same

[quote author=chukwudi44][/quote]

other books that were in circulation were not written by the apostles.

Were not taken as the words of the apostle by the christians then.

Since they were not the writing by the apostle they were not among the ones that the christians considered as The word of God, 2thessolonian 2:13

canonization can not add other books that are not guarded as the words of the apostle cause it will be rejected by the christians cause they already Have the words of the apostle in there churches that they have been studying and learning from befor 4CE all over the churches that apostle paul preach to and even the Jewish christian.

This books were guarded as treasures, they were ready to die for them.