Paul is talking to Timothy. He's not praying. He's writing a letter to Timothy. The section is 1:13-18 and it's a call to faithfulness. Paul is giving Timothy an example in Onesiphorus. There's no praying here at all. HE'S WRITING A LETTER TO TIMOTHY.

He's also NOT remembering him to Onesiphorus' family. He says to Timothy...."The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain.

How is that comment remembering him to Onesiphorus' family? He's speaking to Timothy.

You're forgetting the basics of scripture Lula.....who, what, why, when and where? Who was Paul speaking to? Why was he saying this? What is the context?

and he's certainly NOT praying for a dead man.

Believe what you want.

But don't try and tell me to make a conclusion from something that is NOT there.

Yes, I think the Church's interpretation of 2 Tim.1:18 is the correct one. That St.Paul's friend Onesiphorus was dead at the time the letter to Timothy was written and here St.Paul is praying that God have mercy upon his soul. More evidence that Onesiphorus had died is found in 4:19.

I can turn the table around and say your interpretion of this passage is in complete compliance with Luther's doctrine of faith alone....in order for his doctrine to be, he had to reject the doctrines of the Communion of Saints and Purgatory and to reject them, he had to throw out the Old Testament Books of Machabees and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach).

This section and the one you quoted in 1 Cor is speaking about the gifts of the HS. It has nothing to do with dead people even in the slightest. It has to do with God giving gifts to the church. Just like the body has many parts, there are many gifts, all are diff but all serve a purpose to help the body. That's it. Nothing to do with dead people.

In fact the gifts are only temporal and scripture says that as well. We won't need them on the other side. That's why Love is superior to the gifts because while the gifts are temporary Love is eternal.



ok....let's go there. Show me where the rich man spoke to Lazarus. It's Luke 16. Show me where the rich man prayed to Lazarus. This chapter is great for many things and one of them is to show that it's impossible for the dead to communicate with the living. If you notice.....oh and BTW......all three involved in this chapter.......ARE DEAD!

Good heavens, people. No one is going to convince anyone.

And besides, we're condemning each other to Hell at this point.

Time to walk away, kids. Just walk the hecks away.

There are kewler things on JU than politics and religion. I know it may seem like that's all there is, but there's a thriving writing community and plenty of fun slice of life stuff, too. Give the bible bashing a rest and come play with us fun kids.

I brought this verse up earlier. Again, this is NOT conclusive evidence that he's dead.

Again you have to ask questions.

Q. Where was Paul during the writing of this letter?
A. Rome

Q. Where was Timothy?
A. Ephesus

Q. Where was the household of Onesiphorus?
A. Ephesus..... where Timothy was.

Q. Where was Onesiphorus during this time?
A. Well, he could be dead (we don't know) or by looking at v17 we see he was in Rome.

So what WE DO know is that Paul who was in a Roman prison was ministered to right there by Onesiphorus so he wouldn't have been home with his household. So when Paul wrote the letter he knew this. Maybe Onesiphorus moved on and was traveling to another church?

Could he be dead? Perhaps. But we can't conclude that from these two verses. You are taking an obscure verse and building a theology around it. Very common.

KFC, what does the word "mercy" and "giving mercy" mean. Here St.Paul is asking God to give mercy to Onesiphorus family?

It means that since Onesiphorus, their husband and father, is dead, they are feeling the loss and pain of his passing. So, here St.Paul remembers them...he prays that God give them mercy because of the loss for Onesiphorus who was so good. St.Paul is recognizing Onesiphorus' goodness becasue of the way he refreshed him and wasn't ashamed or afraid to visit him in prison.

and this is the problem. You can't think otherwise can you? So if they say he's praying to a dead person using this obscure verse, then you have no choice but to adhere to it?

That's the nut and bolts to this whole discussion.

it does? It says that? It says he's dead?

Couldn't it also mean that Onesiphorus is gone from them traveling around to diff churches doing what he does best? That while he's encouraging the likes of Paul and others in the ministry his family is back home and Paul is thankful to them they have allowed him to go do the work of God?

Where does it say he's dead?

Think about someone like Billy Graham. He traveled extensively all thru his marriage and his young children's lives. He was gone alot doing the work of God. She basically raised her four children alone most of the time. His household was back in SC while he traveled the globe. Couldn't Paul have written...

"The Lord give mercy unto the household of Billy for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain. But when Billy was in Rome he sought me out very diligently and found me. The Lord grant to Billy that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day and in how many things he ministered to me at Ephesus, you (Tim) know very well. "

SANCHONINO POSTS:



SANCHONINO REPLIES:



SANCHONINO REPLIES AGAIN WITH SEXINESS:



God called. He wants his Book back. You two are abusing it.

KFC POSTS:

In 2 Machabees 12:46, we read, "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they might be loosed from their sins." The Church uses this verse to point to the existence of Purgatory. Luther didn't throw out the book of Machabees becasue he thought it wasn't inspired, it's becasue a book which supported Purgatory had to go...it didn't mesh with the doctrines that came out of the Protestant Reformation.

Thanks Lula.

As I said before. Those prayers that you and I have mentioned are rooted in the Zohar. This alone should raise a cause for concern.

Orthodox Judaism stems from the much of what was known in Jesus' day as the Pharisees. There was MUCH that Jesus did not approve of. The Pharisees are who we get the Talmud from.

Your are welcome AD.



In the sense of which you are speaking, I am absolutely unconcerned. I know by the infallible authority of the Catholic Chruch teaching that the practice of praying for the departed souls in Purgatory is not only true but good.

The Church has authoritatively told us which books are inspired by the Holy Ghost and are, therefore, canonical. The earliest mention of prayers for the dead in the Judaeo-Christian tradition is found in the Second Book of Machabees 12:39-46. The passage in the New Testament that can be adduced as evidence of prayers for the dead is St.Paul's prayer for Onesiphurus which I've discussed at length now with KFC.

One of the reasons given by Protestants for rejecting the 7 Books, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclestiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Machabees, plus chapters from Esther, and Daniel is that they had doubts as to their authenticity were expressed in the early Church. But so were doubts expressed regarding the Epistles St. Jude, St.James, 2nd and 3rd St.John, Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation until the Catholic Chruch made her canon of Scripture at the Council of Carthage in 397AD. It's interesting to note that Protestant churches do not include any of the 16 books in their New Testament that the Catholic Chruch rejected, even though some of them were in use during the first years of the Chruch.

The integrity of the Septuagint was not questioned by the Jews during the days when they spoke with authority on matters relating to the interpretation of the law that God had placed within their keeping. Besides, in those days the integrity of the sacred books was so faithfully safeguarded from corruption by a body of Jewish scholars that the Septuagint would not have been greeted with enthusiam everywhere were it not an exact translation of the 46 books of the inspired Hebrew text.

The canon of only 39 OLd Testament books in Protestant Bibles is of unsound historic standing for it id definitively of Jewish non-Palestinian origin having been agreed upon as a canon of the Jews during the dispersion after "the glory had departed" for Jewry, a "glory that was theirs when they had an Aaronic priesthood, a Temple, a Sanhedrin, sacrifices, and a reasonable hope of the coming of the Messias, as He had not yet come.

The definitive act of canonization of the complete Scriptures is know to have taken place at a synod of Jabneh (Javnia) in 90AD soon after the destruction of the Second Temple.

While the Catholic Chruch depends upon the use of the Septuagint (my English version of it is the Douay Rheims), by Christ and the Apostles, as well as Tradition, to sustain her declaration that the 46 books are writings inspired by God, she has her infallible power, exercised at the Councils to eliminate all doubts on the parts of Catholics like me as to their Divine authenticity.

However easy it was for the Reformers to say that some books are inspired and thus in the canon, while others aren't, in fact they had no solid theological grounds for making such determinations. Ultimately an infallible authority is needed if we are to know what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't. Without such an authority we are left with our individual preferences and we can't tell for certain if those will lead us in the right direction. The Protestant churches have not, nor do they assume to have such infallible power. So the question of authenticity and canonicity of the books in the BIble is dependent upon mere human judgment, which is faulty, hence questionable. ON the other hand, if the CC has not the infallible power she claims to have, then there is no certainty whatsoever as to whether the 46 or 39 books of the OT are of Divine origin.

Yes, thank you, I know this.

*shudders*

exactly. My sentiment as well. That's why I can't respond....for the first time in a long time.....I'm at a loss for words. Not really, but the words I have to say....aren't pretty.....so doing what I've been taught....shutting my mouth.