Originally posted by KellyJayJust in case:
Thanks for sharing I'll go there and read.
Kelly
Did you hit the negative criticisms of Witness Lee yet ?
Here's a recent rebuttal to the letter of 70 scholars criticizing Witness Lee's ministry.
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/index.html
Originally posted by KellyJayHey Kelly, sorry for neglecting this thread so long. I didn't even notice this post till last night, believe it or not.... anyway, here we go...
If you have a clear direction from scripture you need to make sure you are
getting the proper context and so on. What we are talking about is something
very important, who do you pray to! Now God answers prayer, we are to pray
in Jesus' name those I can back up with more than a few scriptures, but to
another person that is dead, really? Yes, I need some ...[text shortened]... do it, if not, I'd question all the teachings of your church what
ever church that is.
Kelly
I was serious when I asked how much Scripture is necessary to make a practice acceptable. Now in this case you're right, there isn't much directly said about praying to saints in the Bible itself. But it is there. I think there's at least as much direct evidence for prayer to saints as there is for the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (another concept for which there isn't much explicit scriptural support, but most of those who call themselves Christians believe it anyway).
All prayer ends up going to God, eventually; but it's OK to ask somebody else to pray for you, living or "dead." In this sense, "prayer" is just another word for "asking."
(And just as an aside, look up the etymology of the English word "bead." Apparently it started out as more than jewelry 🙂 )
In Rev. 5:8, I think (and lots of commentators, including Fathers of the Church, would agree with me, so it's not just me) that the "saints" whose prayers the ancients are offering are not the ancients themselves. It doesn't make sense to me that St. John would word it that way he does if they were the same. The prayers have been prayed by some saints (likely, seems to me, the ones on earth, since "saints" is frequently used in the Bible to refer to them) other than the ancients themselves, but it is the ancients who offer them to God (specifically, to the Lamb "standing as it were slain," interceding for us with the Father--exercising His unique mediatorship).
--pyx
Originally posted by pyxelated"All prayer ends up going to God, eventually; but it's OK to ask somebody else to pray for you, living or "dead." In this sense, "prayer" is just another word for "asking." "
Hey Kelly, sorry for neglecting this thread so long. I didn't even notice this post till last night, believe it or not.... anyway, here we go...
I was serious when I asked how much Scripture is necessary to make a practice acceptable. Now in this case you're right, there isn't much directly said about praying to saints in the Bible itself. But it is [i] ...[text shortened]... ding for us with the Father--exercising His unique mediatorship).
--pyx
Where do you get this truth from? There are more than a few beliefs that have
people contacting the dead, much of that revolves around witchcraft or other
religions. I'm more than a little concern where you connect this practice with
the words, "All prayer ends up going to God eventually..." with something you
have not been able to give some clear scripture for. Since we all end up going
to God eventually than why doesn't everything go, all practices should be
thought of as okay, because no matter what your practice it all ends up going
to God anyway?
I would be happy with very little scripture, as long as it clear and to the point
you are making, not something that has to be read into it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm in absolute agreement. That is one reason Jesus referred to Himself
"However, Mary, as God's Mother, does get the greatest degree of honor, not worship, given to any creature."
I have an issue with this statement, Mary was not God's mother; however, she
was Jesus's mother as the Word of God became flesh. Jesus took on human
nature and Mary was His mother when He did this, she was never at anytime
God's mother.
Kelly
as "son of man". It is absolutely impossible for a human to be the natural
mother of the eternal God in the true sense. Mary deserves honor, but the
RCC has elevated her to the point of receiving prayers and worship even
though they attempt to excuse this behavior. And they have put a sinful
man in the place of Christ here on earth and twist scriptures in support of
it and they are just as subborn as the JWs in defending their position.
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't see why it is acceptable to believe Mary was the natural mother of the son of man, but the natural father of the "son of man" is never mentioned. If the "son of man" meant that Jesus incarnate was naturally conceived, gestated and born, this would imply a natural father too. I'm thinking it was a Roman soldier and was not consensual.
I'm in absolute agreement. That is one reason Jesus referred to Himself
as "son of man". It is absolutely impossible for a human to be the natural
mother of the eternal God in the true sense. Mary deserves honor, but the
RCC has elevated her to the point of receiving prayers and worship even
though they attempt to excuse this behavior. And they have ...[text shortened]... ptures in support of
it and they are just as subborn as the JWs in defending their position.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOooooookay.... here we go again....
I'm in absolute agreement. That is one reason Jesus referred to Himself as "son of man". It is absolutely impossible for a human to be the natural mother of the eternal God in the true sense. Mary deserves honor, but the RCC has elevated her to the point of receiving prayers and worship even though they attempt to excuse this behavior. And they have put ...[text shortened]... iptures in support of it and they are just as subborn as the JWs in defending their position.
... but first, to jaywill: sorry I haven't responded to the topic of this thread for so long. I find it really hard to argue with "Bible-believing" Protestants on Scriptural matters (see the conversation Kelly and I had on this thread not so long ago), since you all seem to set yourselves up as the final arbiters of what is scriptural and what isn't--in direct contravention to what the Bible itself says about the practice. One of these days, not too long from now, I hope, I'll get my disorganized thoughts on the unity of the Church into a more-or-less coherent form and post on-topic again. Not that I despair of it doing any good, but I guess I'll just have to let God work things out on His schedule, and be content to be a finger pointing at the moon till then. But now... let me answer RJHinds.
=======================================================
Originally posted by RJHinds
Let me take things in reverse order.
And they have put a sinful man in the place of Christ here on earth and twist scriptures in support of it and they are just as subborn as the JWs in defending their position.
Excuse me, but it was the Lord Himself who put a sinful man (guess who?) to teach and preach and govern in His place on earth until He returned. What options did he have? 🙂 And of course Catholics are stubborn in defending it; they've been doing so for almost two millennia now.... it's the simple truth, and attested in many places in the Bible. Even simple statistics support it: Peter is mentioned by name (Peter or Simon or Cephas) something like 170 times in the NT, much more often than all eleven other Apostles put together.
Let me just ask: how long have the doctrines you believe been continuously taught? Didn't Jesus say He would be with the Church "all days, until the consummation of the world?" If He allowed His Church to leave Him, show me how He kept that promise between whichever council you say first erred and the start of the Reformation. That's a minimum of several hundred years that the Church on earth was bereft of heavenly guidance. It doesn't fit what Jesus Himself said--in the Bible.
This is not to say that the Catholic Church sprang into existence fully-formed on Pentecost Sunday. It has grown, like an oak tree from an acorn. (See Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" for one good account of this development--one that was written as a final attempt to keep the author out of the Catholic Church, but which instead led him to join it before it was finished.)
That is one reason Jesus referred to Himself as "son of man". It is absolutely impossible for a human to be the natural mother of the eternal God in the true sense. Mary deserves honor, but the RCC has elevated her to the point of receiving prayers and worship even though they attempt to excuse this behavior.
Well, of course God, as God, doesn't have a mother. But as Jesus, God-and-Man, he does. The Council of Ephesus, meeting in the 5th century AD, taught that the natures of Jesus as God and man were inseparably united in His person, and that thus Mary could be called "the Mother of God," since the Person she bore was God. If you have a beef with the great majority of Christians, not only today but throughout history, who honor Mary as such and ask her intercession with her Son, well, take it up with the Council. 🙂
And who is responsible for Jesus being able to call Himself "the Son of Man" anyway? Our Lady. His flesh is completely hers; she is His only human parent.
The Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God. But it doesn't interpret itself, and not all of us are given the inspiration or the authority to say what it means. Jesus left that task to Peter and the Apostles and their successors. Just check the Bible. 🙂
EDIT: This is movie weekend, I guess.
"A Man for All Seasons" applies here, too. More's trial gives the best summation, I guess (3 parts):
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, clearly I should have qualified this a bit. What I meant (since it obviously wan't crystal-clear from the context) was that "all prayer to the saints already in Heaven ends up going to God." This is shown (allegorically, anyway) by Rev 5:8.
"All prayer ends up going to God, eventually; but it's OK to ask somebody else to pray for you, living or "dead." In this sense, "prayer" is just another word for "asking." "
Where do you get this truth from? There are more than a few beliefs that have
people contacting the dead, much of that revolves around witchcraft or other
religions. I'm more tha ...[text shortened]... and to the point
you are making, not something that has to be read into it.
Kelly
And if you'd be happy with very little Scripture, well, you have it already, unless of course you insist on your interpretation over the traditional one. 🙂 I can't make Scripture say what it doesn't. Then again, I can't force you to see that Scripture says what it does.
Originally posted by pyxelatedMary would have to be God to be the Mother of God. Mary is only human
If Jesus is God, and Mary is Jesus' mother, then Mary is the Mother of God.
Accept the premises and you must accept the conclusion. Which premise do you deny?
Of course, it is a lot more complicated than that, since Jesus is fully God and fully man, and his two natures are united inseparably in one person, according to the council of Ephesus in AD 43 ...[text shortened]... and fully man, at the same time, and Mary is His mother. She is, therefore, the Mother of God.
like the rest of us humans. Get it!
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsGot it. She is fully human, and nothing more.
Mary would have to be God to be the Mother of God. Mary is only human
like the rest of us humans. Get it!
But see above. She was selected--above all other humans--to bear the Savior, God-with-us.
She is the Mother of God.
Get it? 🙂
EDIT: She is fully human, in ways we are not. She perfects many human traits, in which we are lacking. All of us suffer from defects that she was spared at the moment of her conception, as befits one who is to bear God in the flesh. Yes, God is her savior, just as much as He is ours (see the Magnificat in Luke ch. 1 for what she herself has to say about this)--but His salvation is given to her uniquely--preemptively, so to speak.
Originally posted by pyxelatedAs a Christian, I don't need a council to tell me what to believe about Mary.
Oooooookay.... here we go again....
... but first, to jaywill: sorry I haven't responded to the topic of this thread for so long. I find it really hard to argue with "Bible-believing" Protestants on Scriptural matters (see the conversation Kelly and I had on this thread not so long ago), since you all seem to set yourselves up as the final arbiters of w ...[text shortened]... com/watch?v=bLIsqYKDqY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX0_FGu8v9A
I have the Holy Bible and the Holy Spirit to teach me the truth. And the
truth about Mary is that she is NOT the mother of God. She was the mother
of Jesus, as the son of man, only. The Son of God was the only begotten
Son of the Father. The Son of God was not begotten by a mother. The
fact that Jesus is both God and man does not mean God had to have a
mother as humans do. Even though Mary is the mother of Jesus, she
was only the mother of the humanity of Jesus and not His divinity. So
this is another false teaching of the RCC just like the teaching that Jesus
was crucified on Friday and born on December 25.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOkay, well, at least I can give you a label now... Nestorian.
As a Christian, I don't need a council to tell me what to believe about Mary.
I have the Holy Bible and the Holy Spirit to teach me the truth. And the
truth about Mary is that she is NOT the mother of God. She was the mother
of Jesus, as the son of man, only. The Son of God was the only begotten
Son of the Father. The Son of God was not begotten by a ...[text shortened]... of the RCC just like the teaching that Jesus
was crucified on Friday and born on December 25.
For what that's worth. 🙂
You know, the idea of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" exists and has been defended at least since St. Paul. And Our Lord wanted us all to be one, and He did not leave us orphans, with only a book to guide us. And claiming the Holy Spirit as your guide doesn't help; those who believe doctrines contrary to those you accept also claim His guidance. How can the Spirit of Truth say one thing to one, and the opposite to another?
Nestorianism (the idea that Our Lady was the mother only of Jesus' humanity, and not His divinity) is precisely what the Council of Ephesus condemned.
I guess if you're content not to hear the Church, nothing I say will make much of a difference. So... let's waste no more time arguing.
Originally posted by pyxelatedI never heard of Nestorianism. If I agree with that then so be it. I
Okay, well, at least I can give you a label now... Nestorian.
For what that's worth. 🙂
You know, the idea of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" exists and has been defended at least since St. Paul. And Our Lord wanted us all to be one, and He did not leave us orphans, with only a book to guide us. And claiming the Holy Spirit as your guide doesn't ...[text shortened]... ch, nothing I say will make much of a difference. So... let's waste no more time arguing.
still declare the council in error. Do you also deny that the teaching
that Jesus was born on December 25 is a false teaching? Also
explain to me how Jesus could have been crucified on Friday and
put in the grave at about sunset and raised form the dead before
daybreak on Sunday Morning and that makes 3 days and 3 nights
(72 hours) that Jesus said He would be in the grave. And don't give
me this nonsense tha 1 minute counted as a whole day and night
(24 hours).
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you also deny that the teaching that Jesus was born on December 25 is a false teaching?
I never heard of Nestorianism. If I agree with that then so be it. I
still declare the council in error. Do you also deny that the teaching
that Jesus was born on December 25 is a false teaching? Also
explain to me how Jesus could have been crucified on Friday and
put in the grave at about sunset and raised form the dead before
daybreak on Sunday Mo ...[text shortened]... e. And don't give
me this nonsense tha 1 minute counted as a whole day and night
(24 hours).
It isn't a teaching at all, it's the date of the feast. Nobody (at least nobody here on earth) knows the exact date of Christ's birth, and nobody pretends to.
There is a (small-t) tradition, apparently going well back into the first millennium AD, that Jesus was conceived on the date of His crucifixion (supposedly March 25). Nine months from March 25 is December 25. This may account for the Church's dating. The date is certainly not set in stone.
Also explain to me how Jesus could have been crucified on Friday and
put in the grave at about sunset and raised form the dead before daybreak on Sunday Morning and that makes 3 days and 3 nights (72 hours) that Jesus said He would be in the grave. And don't give me this nonsense tha 1 minute counted as a whole day and night (24 hours).
So I guess you deny Friday and/or Sunday as the dates of the Crucifixion and/or Resurrection?
Look, I don't have a problem accepting that "3 days and 3 nights" was a current local idiomatic expression that would cover the time period in question. If you do, I'm not sure I can help you. There is a lady who has a theory about "the heart of the earth" not being the grave, but the time during which Jesus bore our sins (beginning in the Garden of Gethsemane). Not sure I buy that, but I'm not rejecting it out of hand, either.
1 edit
Originally posted by pyxelatedYou can't help me because the RCC teachings are false. I already knew
[b]Do you also deny that the teaching that Jesus was born on December 25 is a false teaching?
It isn't a teaching at all, it's the date of the feast. Nobody (at least nobody here on earth) knows the exact date of Christ's birth, and nobody pretends to.
There is a (small-t) tradition, apparently going well back into the first millennium AD, that J n of Gethsemane). Not sure I buy that, but I'm not rejecting it out of hand, either.[/b]
the answers to those questions; and I knew if you attempted to answer
them, according to the RCC traditional explanations, it would indicate
these teachings are from man and not from the Holy Spirit. But It seems
from your response that you don't care.