Praying to Mary - A Biblical Defense

Phil 1:21 · Aug 9, 2017

PeaceB said:
Nah. You get accused of bigotry because of instances such as the time when you made up a story about missing Bible verses at Mass, and I proved that you were lying.

Reported for personal attacks...again.

kepha31 · Aug 9, 2017

redleghunter said:
I didn't argue SS. I provided Irenaeus showing the traditions of the apostles were later written down by the apostles and given to his generation as Scriptures (NT). Will you address what Irenaeus actually said and not introduce into the conversation what you think I am saying?

I don't trusty your quotes because they are incomplete, out of context, and you give obscure sources that can't be found.

Nice commentary, but you missed the context of what Newman was addressing. He admits there are later traditions which were not apostolic.

see above.

I have no idea why you quoted this and calling me unfair. Newman said those things I did not.

Do I have to repost what you intentionally left out?

Tell it to the Roman Catholic theologian I quoted and linked.

The author of your infallible quote is J. H. Ignaz von Döllinger, the nineteenth-century historian who defected from the Church after the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility. He is a liar, not a prominent theologian you wish he was.

Again, Roman Catholic scholar and original work cited.
The link to the free ebook was provided.
Do tell me kind sir what 'my track record is?' I have quoted Sacred Scriptures and Roman Catholic theologians.
I provided the original sources and links to ebooks. These are the words of Catholic theologians.

You are another angry anti-Catholic straining to use theologians as weapons against the Church.

[/QUOTE]

PeaceB · Aug 9, 2017

JayW said:
Reported for personal attacks...again.

None of that changes the fact that you lied and made up a story soley to attack the Catholic Church (and you remember exactly what I am talking about).

As for reporting me, have at it. I could use a nice break from this site for a while. You can continue to slander, lie and make back-handed comments if and when I am suspended, but there will eventually be another person to call you out on your falsehoods.

Phil 1:21 · Aug 9, 2017

PeaceB said:
None of that changes the fact that you lied and made up a story soley to attack the Catholic Church (and you remember exactly what I am talking about).

As for reporting me, have at it. I could use a nice break from this site for a while. You can continue to slander, lie and make back-handed comments if and when I am suspended, but there will eventually be another person to call you out on your falsehoods.

The service I attended was a Roman Catholic wedding where the main reading was Matthew 7:21, 23-27. Verse 22 was removed because the ensuing homily made a specific case for works based salvation. Had you asked, instead of attacking and accusing, I would have been happy to explain that.

And yes, I will continue to report your personal attacks. This is a Christian web site, and that behavior should have no place here.

PeaceB · Aug 9, 2017

JayW said:
The service I attended was a Roman Catholic wedding where the main reading was Matthew 7:21, 23-27. Verse 22 was specifically removed because the ensuing homily made a specific case for works based salvation. Had you asked, instead of attacking and accusing, I would have been happy to explain that.

And yes, I will continue to report your personal attacks. This is a Christian web site, and that behavior should have no place here.

Yeah, I bet. You remember all of a sudden, but you wouldn't give us the verses then. I wonder why?

And you can spare us with the babe in the woods routine. You routinely insult and personally attack members of this forum. You do it in a back handed, smug, passive aggressive way, all the while claiming to be Christian. But I see through you. And so does God.

When I get angy and insult someone I know I am wrong. You insult people left and right, never see the log in your own eye, and then go around trying to school others on Christian virtue. That is the difference between us.

kepha31 · Aug 9, 2017

JayW said:
The service I attended was a Roman Catholic wedding where the main reading was Matthew 7:21, 23-27. Verse 22 was removed because the ensuing homily made a specific case for works based salvation. Had you asked, instead of attacking and accusing, I would have been happy to explain that.

And yes, I will continue to report your personal attacks. This is a Christian web site, and that behavior should have no place here.

The couple getting married pick the readings from a list.
The reading is inappropriate for a wedding; it would never have been an option.
The CC has never taught a works based salvation. She teaches works and faith are organically fused, like the Bible says. Good works must start with the grace of Christ or it's worthless, and maybe you can explain why this gives Protestants fits.

"To whom much is given, much is required."
J.F. Kennedy

PeaceByJesus · Aug 9, 2017

kepha31 said:
Does your constant posting of anti-Catholic propaganda make it true?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? It is up to you to prove that I am posting propaganda, versus failing that, resorting to the Catholic Answers favorite recourse of dismissing all those who expose its sophistry as being anti-Catholic bigots.

That's 5 topics in one paragraph.

All of which go together, as subsequent responses show, and are collectively contrary to PTCBIH.

The historic Christian practice of asking our departed brothers and sisters in Christ—the saints—for their intercession has come under attack in the last few hundred years. Though the practice dates to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans—meaning that all-told it is shared by more than three quarters of the Christians on earth—it still comes under heavy attack from many within the Protestant movement that started in the sixteenth century. Praying to the Saints | Catholic Answers In other words, this attack is a false man made tradition.

What kind of copy and paste apologetic is that? Do you really think the record of spiritual declension and accretion of traditions of men is the standard for what the NT church believed, versus what is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive record of it? In other words, your attack one a a false man made tradition is a false man made tradition.

No, it is not entirely absent from Scripture. Dialogue: "Why pray to a saint rather than to God?"

You mean over 2,000 words that fail to provide even one example of any believers praying to anyone else in heaven but God, or that they were addressed, or any instruction to do so, somehow proves prayer to created beings in Heaven is not entirely absent from Scripture?

Instead such utter failure to provide what Catholics could only wish was recorded despite over 200 prayers in Scripture is itself an argument against it being what the NT church believed and practiced.

What Catholics must resort to is erroneous extrapolation after extrapolation, insisting that a common Catholic practice must be what believers engaged in, despite unable to produce any examples of PTCMIH amidst over 200 prayers to Heaven.
Although the weight of Scriptural warrant is not the basis for the veracity of Catholic doctrine, and what "The Catholic Church" says is to be the supreme law,

Prayers to saints is not mandatory, not a "supreme law". You are being vicious.

I never said it was mandatory, though assent to the doctrine of it is, but that what "The Catholic Church" says is to be the supreme law, and thus calling me "vicious" while engaging in miscontruance of what I said means your charge falls upon your own head.

The Bereans were Greek Pharisees

Really, you see "synagogue of the Jews" who and conclude these must be Greek Pharisees who and "searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. (Acts 17:11,12) Regardless, this postulation does not help your purpose:

and had accepted the Greek Deuterocanon as Scripture 200 years before Christ, the books rejected by human opinion.

Which is so much propaganda, as it presumes that the LXX of the 1st century contained the Deuteros, which is not evidenced by any mss of that era, and which scholarly opinion opposes nor does Paul ever refer to references to any of the Deuteros as Scripture, or "it is written," while even Catholic sources admit that the Jewish canon (the Palestinian canon held by the Pharisees) did not contain the Deuteros. As the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” ( The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

You can reject the Deuterocanon as Scripture if you want, I don't care.

And which was a freedom Catholics such as Jerome had for most of Rome's history.

But you are forced to reject the Jewish history that goes with it. That's why you cannot, or will not, come to terms with the Jewish origins of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

Are you serious? The Scriptural record of the NT church shows what parts of Jewish tradition were followed, and actually warns against giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men (Titus 1:14) which is contrary to what Paul etc. taught, which never examples or teaches PTCBIH.
But only God is shown able to hear all prayer and is the only one appealed to as able to do so, and "only knowest the hearts of all the children of men," (1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chronicles 6:30; Acts 1:24) and from what I recall any two-way communication btwn created beings required both to somehow be visibly in the same place, versus believers praying "hear Thou from Heaven" 2 Chronicles 6:21,23,25,27,30,33,35,39).

This is a misrepresentation. The "Berlin Wall" you have erected dividing heaven from earth is not biblical.

That is a mere argument by mere assertion in lieu of any substantiation against the manifest boundary btwn the two realms.

rather than this offering of prayers being some continuous postal service, they are offered in memorial before the judgments of the last days (Rev. 5:8 and 8:3,4; f. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 6:15; 24:7; Num. 5:15)

In Revelation 5:8, the “twenty-four elders” (usually regarded by commentators as dead human beings) “fell down before the Lamb . . . with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” They appear to have other people’s prayers, to present to God. So the obvious question is: what are they doing with them? Why does Revelation present dead saints presenting the prayers of other saints to God? You have lots of verses but no answers

.
What? The answers were right in front of you, but like a car thief who cannot find a police station, you cannot see that there is nothing said of praying to these beings, nor that they were some continuous postal service interceding for souls, but that they are offered in memorial before the judgments of the last days

If they have them, it stands to reason as a rather straightforward deduction, that they heard the initial prayers as well,

"A rather straightforward deduction hat they heard the initial prayers? And just where is that? I did not deny they may have understood the nature of the prayers, but there is nothing in your proof texts that they heard them, while that is not the main issue, as that they were not prayed to is.

Revelation 8:3-4 is even more explicit. Rather than equate incense and prayers, it actually distinguishes between them, and presents the scenario that the prayers and incense are presented together.

In Revelation 8:3-4 incense9s offered with the prayers, while in Rv. 5:8 the golden vials full of odours are the prayers of saints.

So the question, again, is: what is this angel doing with “prayers of the saints” — presenting them to God? It seems clear to me that they have heard the prayers, and are involved as intercessors. Angels are extremely intelligent beings. We know that they rejoice when a sinner repents. They have knowledge in ways that we do not; above our comprehension. This is biblical proof that dead saints and angels both somehow have our prayers and present them to God. They are acting as intercessors and intermediaries.

No doubt "it seems clear to" you as a Catholic who can only wish the texts say what you need them to, but the fact that angels are extremely intelligent beings (the issue is information, not IQ) who know when a sinner repents (which can be since their names are then written in the Lamb's book of life), and that John prophetically saw angels offering up prayers of the saints precipitating judgment - which is actually consistent with God remembering the cry of the humble when he maketh inquisition for blood, (Psalms 9:12) - simply does not mean they continuously know the express contents of believers prayers let alone are involved as constant intercessors. And it certainly does not teach that they were objects of prayer for believers.

How do they hear our prayers? God gives them the power to do so because they are in heaven and therefore, outside of time.

That they continuously know the express contents of believers prayers is dubious, while arguing for this based upon what God can do is specious.

They are aware of earthly events. We know that from Hebrews 12:1 (“we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”),

This is not likely referring to the view of those in Heaven, but the view of them by believers who were just presented with them in the previous chapter. "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us." (Hebrews 12:1)

"Wherefore seeing" refers to the testimonies past believers that were just presented, the metaphorical "great cloud of witnesses" or martyrs (martus) of great witnesses to faith.

But again, even if they are viewing us this simply is not the same as them praying for us, much less being objects of prayer, which is nowhere seen. It is sad that Catholics must resort to such extrapolation.

and from Revelation 6:9-10, where dead saints are praying for those on the earth.

What? The extrapolation that Catholics must resort to is bad enough, but forcing Scripture to say what they can only wish it did is even worse. Martyrs asking God "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth" is not praying for those on the earth, but is simply a question as to when God will execute justice. It may be that this judgment could be beneficial to the few protected believers that remain on earth, but judging and avenging the blood of those already martyred is the only manifest motive.

We also know of several incidents where dead men (even some from heaven) interact with those on earth:
the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-3 / Mk 9:4 / Lk 9:30-31),
the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11:3-13,
the prophet Samuel (not just a demon impersonating him: 1 Sam 28:7-20),
and “many bodies of the saints” that came out of their graves after Jesus’ Resurrection and went into Jerusalem, appearing to many (Mt 27:50-53).
In the deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees (15:13-16) the prophet Jeremiah returns to earth.

Why do you even both with this? It only confirms what I said about only God being able to (constantly) hear prayer from Heaven and respond to it, and being the only one in Heaven believers pray to, versus two-way communication btwn created beings evidently requiring both to somehow be visibly in the same place, versus believers praying "hear Thou from Heaven"

This is our entire rationale for asking saints to pray to God for us: all from the Bible:

All of which are pitiful substitutes for any real examples of any believers praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, despite over 200 prayers in Scripture and despite there always being plenty of created being in Heaven to pray to, and despite prayer to created beings being a most basic common practice by Catholics.

1) Holy men and women’s prayers have great power. James 5:14-18

Which simply does not translate into them doing so in Heaven, or having the uniquely Divine power to constantly hear prayers in Heaven, any more than mental prayers while on earth, much less being the objects of prayer.

2) Dead saints are perfected in holiness and are still part of the Body of Christ.

Likewise as above.

3) The Blessed Virgin Mary in particular is exceptionally holy (Immaculate Conception) and as the Mother of God, her prayers have more power and effect than that of any other creature: all by God’s grace.

More wanton propaganda invoked to support propaganda. Nowhere is this IM exception to the norm testifies to by God in Scripture, nor that the holy virtuous Spirit-filled Mary of Scripture had the most virtuous character (or exercised the most love), or was ever prayed to, and that her prayers in response to ours must have more power and effect than that of any other creature.

4) We know that they are aware of what goes on in the earth.

Speculation, which avails nothing unless they can be shown to be heavenly objects of prayer.

5) We know that they exercise much charity and pray for us.

More wanton propaganda invoked to support propaganda.

Dialogue: "Why pray to a saint rather than to God?"

You invoked this failure already.

Another attempt to invoke Genesis 48:16, taking it out of context,

Show me where any official Catholic document, or from a reputable Catholic apologist, has taken these verses out of context, or stop making things up.

Show me where I said this attempt was by any official Catholic document, or from someone you would call a reputable Catholic apologists, or stop making things up. But you can tell those Catholic apologists on this form who has taken these verses out of context that they are not reputable Catholic apologists.

Another and egregious example is that of using such as texts "Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts" (Psalms 148:2) to support praying to angels. However, this also ignores context for to be consistent, contextually the Catholic must also affirm praying to created elements is also encouraged:
This is sheer nonsense. Praying to created elements is just another stupid anti-Catholic myth invented by bible cults trying to undermine the historic Church to justify their late arrival.
That I said praying to created elements is something Catholics do is just another example of misapprehension or wilful misrepresentation of what I said. Which was that to be consistent with using such texts as "Praise ye him, all his angels" to support praying to them, the must also affirm praying to created elements is also encouraged, as in "Praise ye him, sun and moon.."

More anti-Catholic propaganda that you can't prove.

Really? Then you have not debated Caths for years as i have, and i expect to see that recourse here.

As well as simply asserting Catholic propaganda as if that provided the evidence they so desperately need.

CCC 76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received

Certainly some Truths were passed on orally, and SS preachers can do so today, under the premise that such are Scriptural, as that of men such as the apostles were. However, directly men such as the apostle could speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new revelation, neither of which a SS preacher or Roman popes claim to do.

Moreover, the veracity of Scripture is not shown subject to testing by oral tradition, but the veracity of even apostolic preaching was subject to testing by the inspired written word of God, which is God's chosen means of preservation, and as written, became the manifest standard for obedience and testing Truth claims.

However, Rome effectively presumes to be the supreme authority (sola Roma), with assurance of Truth for a faithful RC resting upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Thus your attempted defense has been a manifest failure, for faced the Spirit of God not providing actual examples of PTCBIH while providing approx. 200 prayers, and yet recording that of such by pagans, and only instructing and exampling prayer to God in Heaven, you invoke the postscriptural history of Catholic accretion of traditions of men as if that was the inspired standard of what the NT church believed and practiced, but the Spirit of God failed to actually record it.

Then you posted a link which was supposed to show that PTCBIH is "absent from the entire body of inspired Scripture," yet utterly fails to show one actual example.

Next you misrepresented what I said re prayers to saints and church teaching being the supreme law, then tried to make the noble Bereans into Pharisees who held the Deuterocanon to be Scripture, which cannot be established, while that we should follow Jewish tradition re PTCBIH when NT record does not show the church did is absurd.

Next you egregiously tried to extrapolate extremely intelligent angels offering up prayers in Heaven as prophetically seen by John before the climatic judgments of Revelation as meaning they hear prayers and are now constantly involved as intercessors, and as if this somehow supports praying to them, which it simply does not.

You also tried to negate the manner of division btwn the Heavenly and earthly realms which is manifest in any two-way communication btwn created beings evidently being required both to somehow be visibly in the same place, versus believers praying "hear Thou from Heaven," by showing example of what I said. Thanks.

Then you listed your entire rationale for asking saints to pray to God for us, all of which is more wanton extrapolation in lieu of any examples amidst over 200 prayers be believers, or any instruction to address some created beings in prayer to Heaven, and what is needed but you can only wish was there.

We are not dealing with whether pets will be in Heaven, or the existence of a hidden planet, but a most basic common spiritual practice and a God which is faithful to manifestly show such in His inspired writings. The desperate, even inventive extrapolation Catholics must resort to in seeking to provide support for what really is a tradition of men is itself an argument against it.

Next you argue as if presented a Catholic apologetic as being from an official Catholic document, or from "a reputable Catholic apologist," while in reality Catholic apologists do present the argument i cited, and do take it out of context.

Then you argue as if I said that praying to created elements is a Cath practice, when instead i was showing the consequences of their logic.

Finally, as you are simply unable from inspired Scripture to show that PTCBIH was something the NT church believed and practiced, then it is no surprise that in the end you invoke Catholic oral tradition, that carte blanch means of providing what Scripture will not.

Which even extends into Rome making belief in an event binding over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which was so lacking in testimony from tradition that Roman scholars were collectively opposed to it being apostolic doctrine.

But the premise of Rome is not that or the apostles, and simply reveals the false foundation of Rome in teaching for doctrines the traditions of men.

Phil 1:21 · Aug 9, 2017

kepha31 said:
The couple getting married pick the readings from a list.
The reading is inappropriate for a wedding; it would never have been an option.
The CC has never taught a works based salvation. She teaches works and faith are organically fused, like the Bible says. Good works must start with the grace of Christ or it's worthless, and maybe you can explain why this gives Protestants fits.

"To whom much is given, much is required."
J.F. Kennedy

Well, I hate to tell you, but not only was that the main reading, but the homily afterward was very specific about doing good works in order to get into heaven. And we agree; it was inappropriate...wedding or otherwise.

Assuming the couple chose the reading, I'm guessing (and this is only a guess) they did so because verses 24-27 talk about building a house on rock versus sand. The couple are very devout Christians and have committed to make God the foundation of their marriage and family. In that context, it's actually a great reading for a wedding. Where it went sideways was leaving out verse 22 and then diverting the homily into a call for doing good works to earn salvation.

But then again, this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. My apologies for the derailment.

FenderTL5 · Aug 9, 2017

amariselle said:
Yes, well, you did only quote the first sentence of what I wrote after all. If you had addressed my entire post or asked me a few questions if it wasn't clear enough this all could have been avoided.

Not so. If I had addressed the entire post, the criticism would have been exactly the same.

I only addressed the part that was suspect. I saw no need to mention the part that no one disagrees with. However, there was nothing in the balance of the post that corrected that first sentence.Your post taken in it's entirety is still exactly as I described it.
Said in a totally different way, because you seemingly do not understand the point.
If Christ is God-man, then Mary is Theotokos (the God bearer).
Likewise, If Mary is not Theotokos, then Christ is not God-man.
Calling Mary Theotokos is not about who Mary is, it is about who Christ is.

amariselle · Aug 9, 2017

FenderTL5 said:
Not so. If I had addressed the entire post, the criticism would have been exactly the same.

I only addressed the part that was suspect. I saw no need to mention the part that no one disagrees with. However, there was nothing in the balance of the post that corrected that first sentence.Your post taken in it's entirety is still exactly as I described it.
Said in a totally different way, because you seemingly do not understand the point.
If Christ is God-man, then Mary is Theotokos (the God bearer).
Likewise, If Mary is not Theotokos, then Christ is not God-man.
Calling Mary Theotokos is not about who Mary is, it is about who Christ is.

If you really wanted to know what I was actually saying you would have needed to read and address my post in it's entirety. Taking the first sentence alone and fixating on it ignored the entire point. (And led you to suggest I was quoting verbatim, well known heresy) No small accusation by the way.

Here is what I actually said:
(Notice, you didn't even quote a complete sentence, just the first part of one)

amariselle said:
She is the mother of Christ the man, (that is, His humanity/physical body), not of Christ as God. Jesus, as God, existed "in the beginning" and is the Creator of all things, as Scripture plainly states.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-5)

We can see, from the above Scripture, that Jesus, as God, is Mary's Creator, Mary did not create Him or conceive His diety in her womb, as He always existed as God, without beginning or end.

Next time, please address what I actually said, in its entirety, or feel free to ask questions if you still don't understand what I'm saying.

God bless.

redleghunter · Aug 9, 2017

PeaceB said:
APOCALYPSE - Chapter 5

A Catholic Bible commentary compiled by the late Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock, following the Douay-Rheims Bible.*

Is this official Roman Catholic teachings?

redleghunter · Aug 9, 2017

PeaceB said:
Nonsense.

If he defines it as A you wil say "no, it means B". If he defines it as B you will say "No, it means A".

All of the numerous different ways that Protestants define Sola Scripture have the same problem - absolutely none of the various different versions of it are taught in Scripture, and nearly all of them are directly contradicted by Scripture. So you can define it just as you please, and we will show you why you are wrong.

No there is actually a definition. I've provided it several times in these types of threads.

Here it is again:

Westminster Confession of Faith

PeaceB · Aug 9, 2017

JayW said:
I agree. Revelation 5:8 says...

"When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held the golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."

It says the bowls of incense are the prayers of the saints, not that they are the prayers of believers on earth made to the saints. This one is so easy to debunk it's not even funny.

Acts 9:32
And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.

Acts 9:41
And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.

Acts 26:10
Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

Romans 12:13
Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.

Romans 15:25
But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.

Romans 15:26
For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.

Romans 16:15
Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

1 Corinthians 16:1
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

1 Corinthians 16:15
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

2 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

2 Corinthians 8:4
Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.

2 Corinthians 9:1
For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you:

2 Corinthians 9:12
For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God;

2 Corinthians 13:13
All the saints salute you.

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.

Try again.

Fireinfolding · Aug 9, 2017

What have any of those to do with the bowls of incense?

PeaceB · Aug 9, 2017

redleghunter said:
No there is actually a definition. I've provided it several times in these types of threads.

Here it is again:

Westminster Confession of Faith

Can you be less specific?

PeaceB · Aug 9, 2017

Fireinfolding said:
What have any of those to do with the bowls of incense?

"Saints" in the NT is used to refer to living people on Earth.

Bible Highlighter · Aug 9, 2017

PeaceB said:
Acts 9:32
And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.

Acts 9:41
And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.

Acts 26:10
Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

Romans 12:13
Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.

Romans 15:25
But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.

Romans 15:26
For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.

Romans 16:15
Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

1 Corinthians 16:1
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

1 Corinthians 16:15
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

2 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

2 Corinthians 8:4
Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.

2 Corinthians 9:1
For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you:

2 Corinthians 9:12
For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God;

2 Corinthians 13:13
All the saints salute you.

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.

Try again.

What would be better is if you can find a verse that actually shows us where believers pray to dead saints is actually at. I do not see this in the New Testament. How about the pagan fish hats? I do not see that one either. I mean, are you not curious? Try doing a Google image search using the keywords:

"pagan fish hats in babylon and RCC."

Then do one for sunworship and the RCC.

Pretty scary stuff.

...

Fireinfolding · Aug 9, 2017

PeaceB said:
"Saints" in the NT is used to refer to living people on Earth.

I agree, but even the poster you are responding to stated, "It says the bowls of incense are the prayers of the saints, not that they are the prayers of believers on earth made to the saints."

What did I miss? Or what did he miss here?

amariselle · Aug 9, 2017

Jason0047 said:
What would be better is if you can find a verse that actually shows us where believers pray to dead saints is actually at. I do not see this in the New Testament. How about the pagan fish hats? I do not see that one either. I mean, are you not curious. Try doing a Google image search using the keywords:

"pagan fish hats in babylon and RCC."

Then do one for sunworship and the RCC.

Pretty scary stuff.

...

It is rather interesting, many will likely just dismiss it as "conspiracy theory" however.

redleghunter · Aug 9, 2017

kepha31 said:
Spare me the vicious, ignorant, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic hate speech.

Ok, you have no answer.

kepha31 said:
Scripture is not opposed to logic and reasoning.

Of course not. If you actually show me your reasoning and logic for the specific passage I would appreciate it. You used every other passage to explain this one but did not address the actual passage.

kepha31 said:
Now you are saying Jesus was refering to His unbelieving brothers in Mark 3:34 who do the will of God. That's absurd

I believe that is your claim not mine.

kepha31 said:
Marian theology is rooted in both the OT and the NT.

Not according to Ratzinger, which I showed by actually quoting him.

kepha31 said:
How about we level the playing field and you show me "sola scriptura" before the 16th century in any document in any language in any place on earth.

Sure we can have a sola scriptura discussion. Please explain to me your understanding of it?

Jesus and the apostles employed sola scriptura often.

kepha31 said:
This argument has been flattened 30 times on this thread. I guess I have to do it again because you probably don't read links.

Interesting. Your assertion was Jesus referred to His family as examples of doing God's will. However I showed you in the text He does not refer to them but the people around Him. No matter how much your source tried to explain this away it cannot refute what is clearly written.

kepha31 said:
The multiple usage of "brother" is the same as the zillion other places in the Bible where "brother" is found. You just take the one meaning that suits you.

Actually you should examine that a bit more. It is you who is insisting brother does not mean brother when it refers to Jesus' brothers but elsewhere it does. On the other hand I'm pointing brother means brother.

Just as "until" means until unless until refers to Mary and Joseph.

Praying to Mary - A Biblical Defense

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Well-Known Member

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Jesus Never Fails

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Jesus Never Fails

Thank You Jesus!

Similar threads