saints of this and that (moved from GT)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is not that we don't believe the scriptures that you post, it's that we don't believe the connection that you're making about those who are in heaven hears the prayers. Scripture doesn't tell us that they are hearing the prayers, it is through tradition that you're believing this because not one scripture that was posted told us that they hear our prayers. We know that God hears our prayers because scripture have said so.

I agree.....


I totally affirm every single word in the Scriptures our sister quoted. It's just that they have nothing - nothing whatsoever - to do with affirming the claims. Which is why, IMO, all questions and points about those Scriptures were so completely ignored - I suspect there is an awareness of this reality.





.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Because there have been ~2,000 years of very wise men and women who have come before us, but people who believe in sola scriptura often think they are smarter than they are/were and think it is a sin to take their opinions into consideration.

Actually the Reformers quoted from the Early Church Fathers and those who have gone before quite a lot. It is the more recent evangelicals who interpret Scripture in a vacuum and act like the last 2000 years never happened.

 

[Rhamiel]

I understand...

Then provide the substantiation that as people ascend to heaven, their ears undergo an evolutionary change so that their sense of hearing can now detect the prayers of all 2 billion persons on Earth (including unspoken ones), that all those in heaven know the specific, particular prayer petitions of all 2 billion souls still on Earth, that they therefore specifically forward THOSE particular petitions to the Father and that the Father is more likely to respond as the person on earth desires because of this? And that there are those in heaven specifically assigned to specific jobs (ie the Saint of Miners)?

Thanks.






.

evolution?
those in heaven are not held back by the flesh
Christ, when He was ressurected, did not seem to be pained by the holes in His hands and side, He could appear in a room when the doors were locked
Jesus said that at the ressurection we will be like the Angels
and the Bible has many stories about the wonders that angels could do
one of them could trouble the waters of a pool and bring healing
another could kill an entire army in one night

as for the saints being assigned specific jobs, I think that is more of an informal thing

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I understand...

Then provide the substantiation that as people ascend to heaven, their ears undergo an evolutionary change so that their sense of hearing can now detect the prayers of all 2 billion persons on Earth (including unspoken ones), that all those in heaven know the specific, particular prayer petitions of all 2 billion souls still on Earth, that they therefore specifically forward THOSE particular petitions to the Father and that the Father is more likely to respond as the person on earth desires because of this? And that there are those in heaven specifically assigned to specific jobs (ie the Saint of Miners)?

Thanks.


.

Jesus said that at the ressurection we will be like the Angels
and the Bible has many stories about the wonders that angels could do
one of them could trouble the waters of a pool and bring healing
another could kill an entire army in one night

.... in that there will not be marriage. He said NOTHING about the sense of hearing among humans undergoing some evolutionary leap as their souls ascend to heaven that empowers their ears to hear the prayers of all 2 billion believers still on earth (including unspoken ones), that they forward to the Father all the petitions they thus can hear, that the Father will be more likely to respond as they believer on earth desires because of this and that they are ergo even more able to hear with their newly evolved ears those of a profession to which they are associated (Anne to miners, for example).


MY Catholic teachers taught us that we do NOT become angels when we die, that this is a WRONG (if common) MYTH. You seem to have fallen pry to this myth condemned by my Catholic teachers. Angles and humans are totally different creatures.


Read the questions in what you quoted from me.


Thanks!


Pax!


- Josiah




.

 

[Rhamiel]

.... in that there will not be marriage. He said NOTHING about the sense of hearing among humans undergoing some evolutionary leap as their souls ascend to heaven that empowers their ears to hear the prayers of all 2 billion believers still on earth (including unspoken ones), that they forward to the Father all the petitions they thus can hear, that the Father will be more likely to respond as they believer on earth desires because of this and that they are ergo even more able to hear with their newly evolved ears those of a profession to which they are associated (Anne to miners, for example).


MY Catholic teachers taught us that we do NOT become angels when we die, that this is a WRONG (if common) MYTH. You seem to have fallen pry to this myth condemned by my Catholic teachers. Angles and humans are totally different creatures.


Read the questions in what you quoted from me.


Thanks!


Pax!


- Josiah




.

I did not say we become angels, but that we will be like angels
I understand that the human souls in heaven and angels are differant creatures
both souls in heaven and angels are pure spirit not held back by the flesh and with no curroption of sin in them
that is how they are alike, not that humans are turned into angels
yeah that is a common heresy

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.... in that there will not be marriaged. He said NOTHING about the sense of hearing among humans undergoing some evolutionary leap as their souls ascend to heaven that empowers their ears to hear the prayers of all 2 billion believers still on earth (including unspoken ones), that they forward to the Father all the petitions they thus can hear, that the Father will be more likely to respond as they believer on earth desires because of this and that they are ergo even more able to hear with their newly evolved ears those of a profession to which they are associated (Anne to miners, for example).


MY Catholic teachers taught us that we do NOT become angels when we die, that this is a WRONG (if common) MYTH. You seem to have fallen pry to this myth condemned by my Catholic teachers. Angles and humans are totally different creatures.


Read the questions in what you quoted from me.


.

we will be like angels...

In that we won't be specifically MARRIED.


He said NOTHING about the sense of hearing among humans undergoing some evolutionary leap as their souls ascend to heaven that empowers their ears to hear the prayers of all 2 billion believers still on earth (including unspoken ones), that they forward to the Father all the petitions they thus can hear, that the Father will be more likely to respond as they believer on earth desires because of this and that they are ergo even more able to hear with their newly evolved ears those of a profession to which they are associated (Anne to miners, for example).





.

 

[LOCO]

Actually the Reformers quoted from the Early Church Fathers and those who have gone before quite a lot. It is the more recent evangelicals who interpret Scripture in a vacuum and act like the last 2000 years never happened.

 

[LOCO]

There have been. There still are.
Because some men/women, get/got their wisdom directly from God.

But some don't.
How do YOU tell the difference?


No they don't.
They think that if they lack wisdom, they should get it from God.
(This is what SCRIPTURE says, so SS would certainly follow Scripture)



Sure would be.
Same as those who "interpret" Scripture by asking their preacher (priest)
"what does this mean"
Shallow to ask man rather than God.. who tells us to come TO HIM.


None more valid than the author's.



Why worry over what some man says.
I ALWAYS check with God.


And if God's leading him to do that, WTG Joe!

(There are a LOT of corrupt elders and pastors out there who
are NOT following God ...........priests too i bet)


Neither do i.



Absolutely
He's given us a SOUND Mind.
The mind of Christ in fact.

For, "Who can know the LORD's thoughts? Who knows enough to teach him?"
But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ.

Praise Jesus!

The Church came before the Bible. The Apostles always defined doctrine and then taught the Church. The first 20 years they never wrote anything down because they expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. Only when they realised that Jesus was not coming back then they started compiling their letters, memoirs etc.

The Early Church Fathers followed this method and even after Reformation the elders of Protestant communities always defined doctrine and then taught the congregations lest they fall into false doctrines.

If your personal interpretation is correct and you are guided by the Holy Spirit then why does it come into conflict with thousands of others who ALSO say they are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Christians need to be discerning. For me to take your interpretations seriously, I need to consider the following:

1. What ecclesial community you belong to and its history? I would be a fool to take your word for it e.g. 'Trust me the Holy Spirit told me so'. Why should I take your word for it?

2. Does your interpretation correspond with what the Early Church Fathers believed and taught?

3. How far back does your ecclesial community go? Does it have a documented, unbroken history back to Christ himself? Does it practice Apostolic Succession as church history shows?

4. Where does your authority come from in terms of Scriptural and historical evidence?

You also trust 'man' to interpret Scripture for you. You trust yourself. All Sola Scriptura followers trust themselves to interpret scripture. They all claim the HS is guiding them. They are all mini-popes in effect. The difference being the Popes have the Holy Spirit and the Bishops of the the Magisterium assisting when formulating doctrine.

The authors of the Bible have authority yes, but you don't. The Bible cannot say 'hang on, you misunderstood Mark' or 'that is not what Matthew meant in this verse'.

Therefore you are free to interpret it to mean whatever you want and many do, in many different, conflicting and colourful forms. The Holy Spirit is not guiding all of them.

The 'I always check with God' argument is in essence a non-argument, very little substance in this type of argument. You can use it to justify any action or school of thought. In fact that is what suicide bombers, KKK, Nazis and Westboro Baptist goers use to justify their actions.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Church came before the Bible.

1. You lost me... How does THAT statement document that, as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a profound evolutionary leap so that their sense of hearing now can detect the prayers of all 2 billion believers on earth (at least) - including the unspoken ones - and ERGO they pass on all such petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petitions so forwarded in a way more in keeping with the hopes of the believer on earth, and that certain ones in heaven especially pass on such to those in specific vocations (such as Anne for miners)?


2. Yes, your denomination is older than my tome (which was printed in 2008). But your denomination is not older than Scripture (which dates to approx. 1400 BC). Is older always correct? IF so, then we should be Jews, shouldn't we?

The Apostles always defined doctrine and then taught the Church.

1. You lost me... How does THAT statement document that, as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a profound evolutionary leap so that their sense of hearing now can detect the prayers of all 2 billion believers on earth (at least) - including the unspoken ones - and ERGO they pass on all such petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petitions so forwarded in a way more in keeping with the hopes of the believer on earth, and that certain ones in heaven especially pass on such to those in specific vocations (such as Anne for miners)?


2. You probably know this: all 12-14 Apostles are dead. Have been for a really long time. Is your point that we should pray to them that they ask the Father to tell us all? Or do I have to pray to the saint for grant writers?

If your personal interpretation is correct and you are guided by the Holy Spirit then why does it come into conflict with thousands of others who ALSO say they are guided by the Holy Spirit.

1. You lost me... How does THAT statement document that, as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a profound evolutionary leap so that their sense of hearing now can detect the prayers of all 2 billion believers on earth (at least) - including the unspoken ones - and ERGO they pass on all such petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petitions so forwarded in a way more in keeping with the hopes of the believer on earth, and that certain ones in heaven especially pass on such to those in specific vocations (such as Anne for miners)?


2. If the Holy Spirit only guides the RCC denomination (CCC 85, 87, etc.) then why does it come into conflict with thousands of others who ALSO say they are guided by the Holy Spirit?

Christians need to be discerning.

1. You lost me... How does THAT statement document that, as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a profound evolutionary leap so that their sense of hearing now can detect the prayers of all 2 billion believers on earth (at least) - including the unspoken ones - and ERGO they pass on all such petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petitions so forwarded in a way more in keeping with the hopes of the believer on earth, and that certain ones in heaven especially pass on such to those in specific vocations (such as Anne for miners)?


2. I agree. It's one of the reasons why I left the RCC (where such is replaced with "quiet docility as unto God").

I would be a fool to take your word for it e.g. 'Trust me the Holy Spirit told me so'. Why should I take your word for it?

1. You lost me... How does THAT statement document that, as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a profound evolutionary leap so that their sense of hearing now can detect the prayers of all 2 billion believers on earth (at least) - including the unspoken ones - and ERGO they pass on all such petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petitions so forwarded in a way more in keeping with the hopes of the believer on earth, and that certain ones in heaven especially pass on such to those in specific vocations (such as Anne for miners)?


2. BINGO! One of the main reasons I left your denomination. It's EXACTLY what it does and insist upon. I agree with you, that ALONE is reason to doubt and flee.





.

 

[LOCO]

California Josiah

2. Yes, your denomination is older than my tome (which was printed in 2008). But your denomination is not older than Scripture (which dates to approx. 1400 BC). Is older always correct? IF so, then we should be Jews, shouldn't we?



2. You probably know this: all 12-14 Apostles are dead. Have been for a really long time. Is your point that we should pray to them that they ask the Father to tell us all? Or do I have to pray to the saint for grant writers?



2. If the Holy Spirit only guides the RCC denomination (CCC 85, 87, etc.) then why does it come into conflict with thousands of others who ALSO say they are guided by the Holy Spirit?


2. I agree. It's one of the reasons why I left the RCC (where such is replaced with "quiet docility as unto God").


2. BINGO! One of the main reasons I left your denomination. It's EXACTLY what it does and insist upon. I agree with you, that ALONE is reason to doubt and flee.






This is a conversation that I am having with Sunlover about SS, she asked a question and I am answering it. Probably should be on a different thread.

We are spiritual Jews. Chrisitianity is a fulfilment of the Jewish faith.

As far as the CC, Orthodox and EO and some Anglicans will contend no other Churches can prove a direct link to Christ through Apostolic Succession.

If the other ecclesial communities interpretation conflict with the CC and if I was a non-catholic and a discerning christian I would do some research.

I would look at a few things to get a clearer picture.

1. I would look at the history of all the 'churches' and see which one follows the Apostolic and ECF teachings. How far back do they reach?

2. I would find which Church has an unbroken link back to Christ himself.

3. I would see which one stands for the 10 Commandments, doesn't allow divorce etc.

4. I would look for the Four Marks of a True Church.

5. Christ said he would be with his Church through all times and the Gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

What Church makes that claim to be the one Jesus started? Does that Church provide documented Scriptural and historical evidence for that claim?


Personally, I don't believe what Joe Bloggs and Johnny come Lately says on face value alone. No self-respecting Christian who is serious about their faith would.

You would need to present a convincing argument and that argument would need to be bolstered by answers to the questions highlighted above.

This is why you find that EO and Anglicans are probably more aligned with the Catholics on this particular issue because we all understand and appreciated Apostolic Succession, Sacred Tradition, Early Church Fathers and Church history.

You have been told on many occasions that Catholics, Orthodox, EO's and some Anglicans pray directly to God and ask Saints to pray for us as well, why you have chosen to ignore this and insist on demanding that we pray to Saints only is something only you can answer.


Blessings

 

[revrobor]

Actually the Reformers quoted from the Early Church Fathers and those who have gone before quite a lot. It is the more recent evangelicals who interpret Scripture in a vacuum and act like the last 2000 years never happened.

The so called "early Church Fathers" were just men who were busy building a religion and its institutions complete with traditions, requirements and rules, who contributed nothing to (and whose teachings cannot be found in) the Bible. Many of those teachings and traditions are not found in the Bible and are contrary to Scripture so they cannot be considered experts in the faith only in the religion they have help build. The world and followers of the Lord do not need those religions but a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

 

[LOCO]

The so called "early Church Fathers" were just men who were busy building a religion and its institutions complete with traditions, requirements and rules, who contributed nothing to (and whose teachings cannot be found in) the Bible. Many of those teachings and traditions are not found in the Bible and are contrary to Scripture so they cannot be considered experts in the faith only in the religion they have help build. The world and followers of the Lord do not need those religions but a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

You do realise the Early Church Fathers compiled the first Bible.

There were many Gospels and Letters. The ECF decided at the Council of Trent under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which books would go into the New Testament and which wouldn't.

You accept the authority and discernment of the ECF in compiling the Bible and then say they have nothing to contribute.:o

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The Church existed before the Bible, the Church gave the world the Bible.

Our primary focus should be on a relationship with Jesus, the Living breathing Word of God not the Bible which is an inanimate object.

 

[revrobor]

You do realise the Early Church Fathers compiled the first Bible.

There were many Gospels and Letters. The ECF decided at the Council of Trent under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which books would go into the New Testament and which wouldn't.

You accept the authority and discernment of the ECF in compiling the Bible and then say they have nothing to contribute.:o

So they were editors (some say with the help of the Holy Spirit). They have no teachings in the Bible and didn't get it in chronological order. Any doctrine they dreamed up is contained in extra-biblical books that the RC, EO and Anglican churches consider as important as the Bible (much like the Mormons and JWs).

 

[LOCO]

So they were editors (some say with the help of the Holy Spirit). They have no teachings in the Bible and didn't get it in chronological order. Any doctrine they dreamed up is contained in extra-biblical books that the RC, EO and Anglican churches consider as important as the Bible (much like the Mormons and JWs).

If you don't believe they were assisted by the Holy Spirit when compiling the Bible, how can you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? Why believe anything in the Bible if you don't believe the ECF were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And what of the Gospels and Letters that did not make the final cut? Are their authors inspired or not? Why didn't the ECF include them in the Bible? It could be a fantasy book because as far as you are concerned the people who decided its contents were not inspired by the HS.

The CC/EO has never said or taught that any other book/texts/documents is equal to or as important as Sacred Scripture.

These other books/texts/documents are referred to in order to gain a fuller picture. We know that NOT everything Jesus and the Disciples did or said is in the Bible.

In order to get a fuller picture you need to look at other complementary sources. e.g. a non-believer will not necesssarily believe that Jesus existed just because you say he existed and the Bible names him. The Bible for most atheists is a fairytale book.

You could point to secular and Jewish records and writings of the time that mention Jesus by name. You could also point to Roman records which note the trial and execution of Jesus. These would bolster your argument and yet they are not Scriptural.


Blessings

 

[Incariol]

So they were editors (some say with the help of the Holy Spirit). They have no teachings in the Bible and didn't get it in chronological order. Any doctrine they dreamed up is contained in extra-biblical books that the RC, EO and Anglican churches consider as important as the Bible (much like the Mormons and JWs).

I'm completely lost. What are you going on about? None of those groups you've listed has "extra-biblical books" they "consider as important as the Bible" with the possible exception of the LDS, because I'm not sure if the Book of Mormon is considered by them part of the Bible proper or not.

Also, LOCO is right. You are being selective in accepting the canon from the Fathers but then not accepting what else they teach.

You do accept the canon, right?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The Church came before the Bible.

What do you mean the Church came before the Scripture?
You do realize that the church teaches what is in Scripture right? And the first century church, whom had the gift of the Holy Spirit to teach, prophecy, interpret, speaking in tongues, etc....were to prophecy and teach each other what God wanted us to know. And consequently, the Scriptures were written of the teachings going on in the church through those who were eyewitnesses to everything. The same gospel we have today is the same gospel that the church was being taught. As for the idea that the bible came before the church, you might mean that the New Testament was written after the church was established (no way do you mean the OT was written after the church because we have Christ reading from the prophet Isaiah) but that's because you're looking at the written form of the Scripture, for they had the Holy Spirit that helped them teach each other--which is still the word--and now we are fortunate to have the written form which is what they were learning.

When you look at Genesis and it says "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" while that was written after the event, it's still speaking of the event that actually happened and that statement shape our understanding of the world today. If you look at the book of Luke it says

It seems good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.--Luke 1:3-4​

or when Paul wrote

If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.--1 Cor. 14:37​

The Scripture shape our understanding, and helps us to live this life in Christ. Yes, we do all things through Christ. Yes, when we are in Him, we live to seek to glorify our Father in Heaven and Scripture helps us to have a mind of Christ. To do as He teaches, to love as He loves and to live this life to glorify the Father.

The New Testament might have been written after the church was established but the recorded events in the gospels preceded the establishment of the church (Jesus's life, death, resurrection and teachings) and the ones =from Acts and onward were teachings that the church was learning or being corrected. It helped shape them and it now shapes us. And by it, don't get me wrong, I don't mean without the Holy Spirit for He's the one that's been here the whole time, helping us understand what is being said in the Scripture.

 

[Catherineanne]

So they were editors (some say with the help of the Holy Spirit). They have no teachings in the Bible and didn't get it in chronological order. Any doctrine they dreamed up is contained in extra-biblical books that the RC, EO and Anglican churches consider as important as the Bible (much like the Mormons and JWs).

That is a very strong assertion, R. Kindly tell me exactly WHAT book or books Anglicans put on the same level as Scripture, and from which we get doctrine, won't you? If you are prepared to make such statements, then you need to be prepared to either back them up or retract. So which is it?

You might care to consider the following, to save yourself some time:

http://www.anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

 

[Catherineanne]

What do you mean the Church came before the Scripture?

The Canon of Scripture was finalised in the fourth century. Before that time there were certainly OT Scriptures, and there were some letters and gospels, but it is highly unlikely that any one congregation had access to all that we would regard as the NT. Therefore the Church existed for around four hundred years with the Gospel, and with selected writings, some of which were later declared canonical and some of which were not, but without the Bible.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The Canon of Scripture was finalised in the fourth century. Before that time there were certainly OT Scriptures, and there were some letters and gospels, but it is highly unlikely that any one congregation had access to all that we would regard as the NT. Therefore the Church existed for around four hundred years with the Gospel, and with selected writings, some of which were later declared canonical and some of which were not, but without the Bible.

The Scripture was being written and circulated. The first century church had the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles (whom had the Holy Spirit also) teaching them while the inspired men were writing the Scripture. The entire New Testament is written by someone who were eyewitnesses to the things happening.

When Paul corrected the church at Corinth, it was because they were doing something that went against what was being taught to them in their day. The word (what Paul was writing through the Holy Spirit) was correcting and shaping the church. The teachings were always there, and the Scripture attest to the teachings that they heard. The same teachings that they were being taught is the same teachings that we are being taught in Scripture. One of the difference we have is that we are 2000+ years removed from the actual events, but we have recorded history of what was going on and the teachings.

And by the way, the New Testament is made up of the Gospel and select writings, so therefore they had the "bible" they just didn't have it in one giant book like we do, they had it in individual books (don't know what they call it). Think of it this way, they had the entire New Testament in 27 books (or however many books they had) instead of having it in one giant anthology.

 

[Catherineanne]

And by the way, the New Testament is made up of the Gospel and select writings, so therefore they had the "bible" they just didn't have it in one giant book like we do, they had it in individual books. Think of it this way, they had the entire New Testament in 27 books (or however many books they had) instead of having it in one giant anthology.

I am afraid that is just fantasy. 'They' did not have 27 books. The chances are each church community (ie Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth etc) would have had maybe two or three, but none of them would have had them all. Eventually further copies would be made and circulated, but that took time. And a lot of the writings that they circulated in this way ended up excluded from the canon. If there is no fixed canon, then there can be no extra canonical writings.