Trinitarians: Which part of the Trinity is Jehovah?

[LoveofTruth]

Keep in mind that is the believers from ALL AGES that are in heaven. Never were they a majority on earth. Jesus said straight is the gate and narrow is the way, and FEW will find it.

You just asked to show the majority being a good things, and I did, you did not defne it as you are doing now. many will say one thing and then try to redefine it when they are proven wrong. It happens with many who try to show what they are saying and are corrected.

And yes the majority on earth is wrong often and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction.

If everyone had the Holy Spirit that teaches, then they wouldn't have 44000 different understandings!

Yes this is obvious, all false doctrine comes from men not being led by the Spirit and going after their own understanding.

Did Peter and John and Paul and Jude and James etc argue about doctrine after receiving the Holy Spirit? NO.

Again you are not in the Spirit in this statement I believe and you have gone after your own understanding or some teaching from the world. They did argue doctrine, teachings truth etc and try to convince and exhort others, to charge some that they teach no other doctrine, they spoke of the doctrines of our faith etc.

"11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."(Galatians 2:11-16 KJV)

Is justification by faith a doctrine and is it needful to warn men of being swayed away from truth by the legalist group because of a wrong doctrine or understanding etc?

and

"1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.3 And being brought on their way by the church..."(Acts 15:1-3 KJV)

Yes many were involved in doctrinal arguments and often in the church. Many of Pauls letters were correcting issues and doctrines etc and so was John and Peter etc.

Romans 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you."

Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

Ephesians 4:14
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

Colossians 2:22
Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?" Correcting false doctrine here.

1 Timothy 1:3
As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine," there were some teaching false doctrine and needed to be charged.

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" and he mentions some of these doctrines and says then, "6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness." (1 Timothy 4:6)

"
1 Timothy 6:3
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" Can believers warn about these false doctrines? Yes.

Titus 1:9
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." And these gainsayers there were some who subverted whole houses of the circumcision group and those who taught the commandments of men and for money also etc. So true Overseers will exhort and convince by doctrine whoever speaks against it.

Hebrews 13:9
Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines."

2 John 1:10
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:"

Revelation 2:14
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication."

1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee"

if 2 people have the Holy Spirit, and both believe the Bible totally different, then either God is the author of confusion, OR one or both don't REALLY have it.

Possibly, or a third option, one is a mature brother and the other is a babe and unskillful in the word of righteousness. Again you are not speaking by the spirit here or if you are you only speak partial and not fully sound.

We are to study, but the scriptures are of NO private interpretation. What you all are presenting are private interpretations, NOT what the spirit has revealed.

No I am speaking of the scriptures and which ones ARE the Holy scriptures, it is needful to show some history where they come from and to expose the false text and doctrines that can be preached from them. This again is studying to show my self approved. But as I do all things i seek to be led by the anointing that teaches me all things. For example I was shown by God in a strong way that the manuscripts that many today use for their new versions were only around at a certain time . But the manuscripts that are used in THE BIBLE (King James Bible) used the Textus Receptus that was quoted by men way before the so called "Older manuscripts were around and many of the verses that the so called "older Manuscripts " take out from the King James bible, are quoted by older sources as Ante-Nicene fathers etc. If you read Pauls words he uses many ways (in faith) to speak of things, he draws from arguments about boxers, the Roman law, Statues with the inscription "to the Unknown god", things known to the people of the times etc.

These thinsg we are discussing are vital to even using and having the true Holy Scriptures. If men are drawn away by the teachings and doctrines and ideas of those who use corrupted text, then how can believers use all scripture for doctrine correction instruction in righteousness etc if they do not have the true scriptures?

 

[Meowzltov]

btw folks, it's ante-nicene, not anti. anti means against. ante means before.

 

[LoveofTruth]

btw folks, it's ante-nicene, not anti. anti means against. ante means before.

yes my correction it should be Ante-Nicene

 

[donfish06]

Rediculous. God gave us brains for a reason: he expects us to use them.

Yes, but you are relying more on your brain than His spirit.

 

[donfish06]

I would argue there is precedent from scripture. Clearly it calls for us to be One Body and pray for one another- even pray without ceasing. After spending our life here praying for others, especially for the faithful, it should seem at least odd to imagine those who have gone on to the next life our suddenly released from that responsibility of offering up prays for others.

And such activity would also explain why/how Saint John depicts those already with Him right now offering up the prayers of the living. A prayer is a request and asking someone to pray for you is a request for them to ask God for something on you behalf. The elders with Him right now cannot offer up something not possessed, which means Saint John is depicting them possessing prayer requests that they are offering up to God on the behalf of the living.

Um... Praying FOR others is not praying TOO others. God NEVER told us to pray TO others. That's what PAGANS do

 

[LoveofTruth]

btw folks, it's ante-nicene, not anti. anti means against. ante means before.

Consider carefully before you just immediately try to refute it

"The following list shows 30 examples of significant passages where the quotations of Scripture by the second and third century Christians support the readings in the Traditional Text and oppose the readings in the Critical Text. Yet these quotes are much older than the manuscripts that provide the source for the Critical Text. This shows that the major disputed readings in the Traditional Text are more ancient than those in the Critical Text. It shows that the KJV/NKJV type text was prevalent all around the Mediterranean Sea, from France to Africa, where the following authors lived and worked, in the second and third centuries.

Matt. 5:22
Traditional Text: "angry with his brother without a cause"
Critical Text: "angry with his brother"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book. V, XVI, 5] [Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book 3, 8]

Matt. 6:9-13
Traditional Text: The Lord's Prayer, long version.
Critical Text: Lord's Prayer, short version.
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Didache - VIII]

Matt. 17:21
Traditional Text: "...this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
Critical Text: [omits] [fasting also removed in: Mark 9:29 & Acts 10:30]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Tertulian - On Fasting, VIII] [Pseudo Clement - First Epistle, XII]

Matt. 19:16,17
Traditional Text: "...Good master, ...Why callest thou me good, there is none good, but one, that is, God."
Critical Text: "...Teacher, ... Why do you ask me about what is good?"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Origen - Against Celsus, Book V, XI]

Matt. 26:28 [identifies the "New Covenant" with Jer. 31:31-34]
Traditional Text: "the new covenant"
Critical Text: "the covenant"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Cyprian - Epistle LXII]

Matt. 27:24
Traditional Text: "the blood of this just person"
Critical Text: "this man's blood"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book V, XIX]

Mark 1:2
Traditional Text: "the prophets"
Critical Text: "Isaiah the prophet" *
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book III, XVI, 3]
[An obvious mistake in the CT, Mark goes on to quote Malachi then Isaiah. This change may not appear significant, but if the CT is correct here, then Mark made an error while writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What does that do for the credibility of the rest of Scripture?]

Mark 2:17 [also Matt. 9:13]
Traditional Text: "call...sinners to repentance"
Critical Text: "call...sinners"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Barnabas - V]

Mark 16:9-20
Traditional Text: [Included]
WH [omit] CT [bracketed]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text:[Irenaeus - Book III, X, 5] [Constitutions - Book VIII, 1]

Luke 2:14
Traditional Text: "good will toward men"
Critical Text: "peace to men on whom his favor rests"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Gregory - Twelve Topics on the Faith, Topic XII] [Methodius - Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, V] [Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book VII, XLVII]

Luke 10:1,17
Traditional Text: "seventy"
Critical Text: "seventy-two"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book II, XXI, 1] [Tertullian - Against Marcion, Book IV, XXIV]

Luke 21:4
Traditional Text: "offerings of God"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book IV, XVIII, 2] [Cyprian - Treatise VIII, 15]

John 1:18
Traditional Text: "Only begotten Son."
Critical Text: "Only begotten God."
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book III, XI, 6] [Tertulian - Against Praxeas, XV] [Origen - Against Celcus, LXXI] [Hippolytus - Against Noetus, 5] [Archelaus - Disputation with Manes, 32] [Alexander of Alexandria - Epistles on the Arian Heresy, 4]

John 3:13
Traditional Text: "which is in heaven"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Cyprian] Vol. 5, 622

John 6:69
Traditional Text: "Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God"
Critical Text: "you are the holy One of God"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Cyprian - Epistle LXVIII, 8]
[The expression, "holy one of God" is used only by demons in the Traditional Text, (see: Mark 1:24 & Luke 4:34). It does not demonstrate faith in Christ as Peter's confession in the NKJV.

John 7:53-8:11
Traditional Text: included
WH / Critical Text: All twelve verses missing [or bracketed]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book I, XXIV]

John 9:4
Traditional Text: "I must work"
Critical Text: "we must work"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Tertullian - Against Praxeas, XXII]

Acts 8:37
Traditional Text [Textus Receptus]: Ethiopian Eunuch's confession.
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support TR: [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. III, xii.8] [Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book III, 43]

Rom. 1:16
Traditional Text: "...the gospel of Christ."
Critical Text: "...the gospel."
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Tertullian - On Prescription Against Heretics, XXIII]

Rom. 10:15
Traditional Text: "gospel of peace"
Critical Text: "good news"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book III, XIII]

1 Cor. 5:7
Traditional Text: "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us"
Critical Text: "Christ our passover lamb has been sacrificed"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Clement of Alexandria - Stromata, X] [Tertullian - Against Marcion, VII]

Eph. 5:30
Traditional Text: "of his body, of his flesh and of his bones"
Critical Text: "of his body"
Church Fathers Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book V, II, 3] [Methodius - Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, I]

Phil. 4:13
Traditional Text: "...Christ, who strengthens me."
Critical Text: "...him who gives me strength."
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Origen - De Principiis, Book III, II, 5]

Col. 2:18
Traditional Text: "...he hath not seen."
Critical Text: "...he has seen."
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Origen - Against Celcus, VIII]

Col. 3:6
Traditional Text: "on the children of disobedience"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Clement of Alexandria] Vol. 2, 288

1 Tim. 6:5
Traditional Text: "from such withdraw thyself"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Cyprian - Epistle XXXIX, 6, & Epistle LXXIII,3]

Heb. 11:37
Traditional Text: "were tempted"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Clement of Alexandria - Stromata, XVI, ] [Origen - Against Celcus, VII]

1 John 4:3
Traditional Text: "Christ in the flesh"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Polycarp - Epistle, VII] [Tertulian - On Perscription Against Heretics, XXXIII & On the Flesh of Christ, XXIV]

1 John 5:7
Traditional Text [TR]: "...the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support TR: [Tertullian - Against Praxeas XXV], [Cyprian - Epistle LXXII, 12], [Cyprian - Treatise I, 6]

Rev. 22:14
Traditional Text [TR]: "do his commandments"
Critical Text: "wash their robes"
Church Fathers support TR: [Tertullian - On Modesty, XIX] [Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book II, 22]

In each of these quotes by the early Fathers who died before the supposed recension was made, their Bibles contained the words in question which are omitted from the Critical Text based largely on Aleph and B. But, in this sampling you will notice something absolutely amazing. Notice those labeled "TR" (Textus Receptus) above. These readings are the minority readings within the Traditional Text, and are considered to have no weight at all. Yet, we find that even many of these TR readings (against the Majority Text and Critical Text) find good support in the early Fathers. The readings are older than the Alexandrian manuscripts that omit them, actually being the OLDEST evidence by a long shot! If the "oldest" witnesses are to be believed, particularly when there is variety (different Fathers from different areas or languages) the evidence is very weighty. This is the primary reason I have not abandoned the TR in favor of the Majority Text readings where they differ. The above does not take into account any agreement found in early papyrus fragments or early Latin and Syriac versions.

Often the TR is ridiculed for its occasional departure from the majority readings within the Traditional Text. But, these cases seem to have been judged worthy of inclusion by the KJV translators in light of their early evidence in the patristic evidence, early versions, and perhaps even lectionaries. The KJV translators may have been a lot smarter than is commonly supposed, by basing their translation - recension on more than just the Majority Text (which is limited to only Greek copies). But of course, they stated as much in their "Translators to the Reader." Therefore, it is my opinion that the KJV (and TR) must be judged by the totality of the data, not merely by its adherence to the Majority Text. The TR may in fact be the best Greek text, and contain the oldest readings.

 

[donfish06]

The Pharisees and Sadducees understood the scrolls more than ANYONE. They had the best human understanding possible. Their ENTIRE lives were dedicated to studying and learning. But when the WORD was made flesh, and stood right in front of them, they MISSED Him and HATED Him.

So are you MISSING Christ through all of your dogma and man's thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if He showed up today and you all hated Him just as your predecessors did in the Bible, because he would come CONTRARY to what YOUR BRAINS have thought.

Just like the Pharisees who continued to think they were right, you rely on intellect rather than God's Spirit.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Um... Praying FOR others is not praying TOO others. God NEVER told us to pray TO others. That's what PAGANS do

Catholics are not pagans and the forbidden practice is worshiping false gods, which would include asking false gods to do something for us. It would require our belief that such false gods have the power to do what we are asking.

Asking someone to pray for us is not worshiping or asking them to do anything besides pray to God on our behalf. Such requests are rightly called prayer, and I could correctly say my prayer (request) is that you pray for me - people would understand I am not asking them to do anything except pray to God on my behalf. They certainly would not think I am worshiping them or that I am praying to them as I would God. It is no different with the Saints in asking them (a prayer) to pray for us.

People can pray for us without knowing what we need, but I see nothing wrong with asking people to pray for specific needs. The Saints are still people, still part of the Church, One Body. Take what is probably the most said request (prayer to a Saint), what do Catholics ask Her to do? -----> "Pray for us now and at the hour of our death." So they only thing we are asking Mary to grant is that She pray for us.

And the idea is implicit in that prayer that Mary understands the reason we are asking Her to pray for us (right now) - IOW what we need. We ask Her more than any other Saint not because we think Mary will save us (from whatever), but because we believe She would be a very effective prayer warrior to have in our circle - with all such prayer circle requests directed at God. We believe that about Her because of Whom Her Son is.

 

[Albion]

Asking someone to pray for us is not worshiping or asking them to do anything besides pray to God on our behalf. Such requests are rightly called prayer

That part of your post is, I'm sorry to say, just a rationalization.

...I see nothing wrong with asking people to pray for specific needs. The Saints are still people, still part of the Church, One Body.

But again, you don't have any Biblical precedent that would justify this practice; it's praying to the dead, not to your neighbor; there's no way to know if they can hear your prayer; and in fact, you don't know if some of these spirits are in heaven or somewhere else. And that's only the half of it. The idea that we need an intermediary like this in order to attract God's attention flies in the face of Jesus' own advice to his followers that the Father wants to hear from us--directly.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yes, but you are relying more on your brain than His spirit.

You don't get it. To rely upon our God given brains when it is appropriate to do so IS to rely upon the spirit. To abdicate and say we are following the spirit when we should be using our brains is not following the spirit at all but is simply going by our emotions.

 

[donfish06]

That part of your post is, I'm sorry to say, just a rationalization.



But again, you don't have any Biblical precedent that would justify this practice; it's praying to the dead, not to your neighbor; there's no way to know if they can hear your prayer; and in fact, you don't know if some of these spirits are in heaven or somewhere else. And that's only the half of it. The idea that we need an intermediary like this in order to attract God's attention flies in the face of Jesus' own advice to his followers that the Father wants to hear from us--directly.

You keep talking get your way around it, but there is NO BIBLICAL precedent for communicating with the "sleeping". If you do it, you are ADDING to the WORD and the angel told John in Revelation that those who ADD TO THE WORD will have plagues added unto them!

JESUS taught us HOW to pray. "Our FATHER, who art in heaven" He doesn't say our BROTHERS. If you insert YOUR praying to our sleeping BROTHERS, then you are ADDING to what Jesus said. You are ADDING to the WORD. If you ADD to the Word, then you must not like the Word enough as it is, which would mean you are AGAINST the Word.

Because you follow the Catholic Dogmas rather than the Word, you are AGAINST the Word. There is no way around it!

How could you even follow such a corrupt, cover-up laden, full of homosexuality and you name it, murdering the saints for hundreds of years, KILL YOU IF YOU READ THE BIBLE FOR YOURSELF Church such as Catholicism and feel good about yourself?

 

[Albion]

You keep talking get your way around it, but there is NO BIBLICAL precedent for communicating with the "sleeping".

Not sure what went wrong here, don, because although you quoted me, I said very much the same thing you did and did NOT support the idea of praying to the deceased.

 

[donfish06]

Not sure what went wrong here, don, because although you quoted me, I said very much the same thing you did and did NOT support the idea of praying to the deceased.

Whoops, meant to quote Bubba I think

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That part of your post is, I'm sorry to say, just a rationalization.



But again, you don't have any Biblical precedent that would justify this practice; it's praying to the dead, not to your neighbor; there's no way to know if they can hear your prayer; and in fact, you don't know if some of these spirits are in heaven or somewhere else. And that's only the half of it. The idea that we need an intermediary like this in order to attract God's attention flies in the face of Jesus' own advice to his followers that the Father wants to hear from us--directly.

It is not rationalization to say that prayer is by definition a request, asking. That is a fact. It is not rationalization to also say that asking someone for something can properly be called a prayer, also a fact. So the fact Catholics can be said to "pray to" a Saint is simply acknowledging such a request for what it is. Calling that request to a Saint a prayer is not admission that it represents giving the Saint worship rightfully belonging to God or a belief that the Saint (and not God) could be the source of any relief of such request if granted. It is a prayer request, which requires the one receiving it give that request to God - and that is true whether the person asked to pray for us is living or not.

Since Catholics, like most Christians here, ask other people to pray for them and include the Saints in such requests, am not sure how that extension to include the Saints makes it possible for us to be accused of requiring a Saint as an intermediary. The Church does not even require us to ask Saints to pray to God on our behalf, at most it is a benefit they strongly suggest we use - so it can hardly be seen as a requirement for an intermediary. The practice is merely an extension to include those Saints in what most Christians do, which is to ask others to pray for them. Have never heard people recommending the use of prayer circles being accused of saying we need those people as intermediaries with God. So unless one is prepared to say that anyone using prayer warriors or prayer circles is needing intermediaries to "attract God's attention" then such a claim rings false to me.

Catholics do pray directly to God, publicly and privately, with direct prayer to God being the most common prayer in my experience. The Lord's Prayer itself is a part of every Mass (whereas the Hail Mary is not), so there are Catholics praying directly to God every hour of everyday, 24/7 and 365. So it is not like we can be accused of NOT praying directly to God. So again the idea our use of Saints as champion prayer warriors means the Church requires the use of intermediaries rings false.

The only remaining issue is whether or not it would be proper to ask someone who has passed on to pray for us. As far as scripture support for that, I see no other useful/valid explanation for how the "elders" Saint John depicts offering the prayers of the living to God got those requests unless someone living asked them to offer it to God on their behalf. I also see no valid reason to excuse the faithful departed from the call for the entire Body to pray for one another. It also seems fitting and honorable that they should be allowed such a role.

 

[Albion]

It is not rationalization to say that prayer is by definition a request, asking. That is a fact.

...which I'm sure you are aware was not the point there. The point was that attempting to pray to a spirit is not the same thing as asking one's neighbor to pray for you (which DOES have Scriptural backing).

 

[Meowzltov]

The point was that attempting to pray to a spirit is not the same thing as asking one's neighbor to pray for you (which DOES have Scriptural backing).

If they are both members of the body of Christ, the difference is negligable.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

...which I'm sure you are aware was not the point there. The point was that attempting to pray to a spirit is not the same thing as asking one's neighbor to pray for you (which DOES have Scriptural backing).

Absent a prohibition, and I do not think OT laws regarding summoning would apply to the practice, I would say those already in Heaven are still part of the One Body and as such scripture would obligate them the same as members here and now would be obligated to pray for one another. Further backing is found in Saint John depiction of some of them doing just that - which also lacks a better explanation for what they are shown doing. Even if we agreed we are light on such backing, I do not see the harm in it - anymore than talking to departed loved ones or guardian angels and the like. We can agree to disagree that there is backing.

 

[Albion]

Absent a prohibition, and I do not think OT laws regarding summoning would apply to the practice, I would say those already in Heaven are still part of the One Body

The point was that for many of these people assumed to be saints we do not actually know what has become of them or whether they can hear us, even if they are in Heaven. That's not the case with one's neighbor, even if we do not mention that the Bible recommends praying for one's neighbor and does not recommend praying to spirits.

 

[donfish06]

It is not rationalization to say that prayer is by definition a request, asking. That is a fact. It is not rationalization to also say that asking someone for something can properly be called a prayer, also a fact. So the fact Catholics can be said to "pray to" a Saint is simply acknowledging such a request for what it is. Calling that request to a Saint a prayer is not admission that it represents giving the Saint worship rightfully belonging to God or a belief that the Saint (and not God) could be the source of any relief of such request if granted. It is a prayer request, which requires the one receiving it give that request to God - and that is true whether the person asked to pray for us is living or not.

Since Catholics, like most Christians here, ask other people to pray for them and include the Saints in such requests, am not sure how that extension to include the Saints makes it possible for us to be accused of requiring a Saint as an intermediary. The Church does not even require us to ask Saints to pray to God on our behalf, at most it is a benefit they strongly suggest we use - so it can hardly be seen as a requirement for an intermediary. The practice is merely an extension to include those Saints in what most Christians do, which is to ask others to pray for them. Have never heard people recommending the use of prayer circles being accused of saying we need those people as intermediaries with God. So unless one is prepared to say that anyone using prayer warriors or prayer circles is needing intermediaries to "attract God's attention" then such a claim rings false to me.

Catholics do pray directly to God, publicly and privately, with direct prayer to God being the most common prayer in my experience. The Lord's Prayer itself is a part of every Mass (whereas the Hail Mary is not), so there are Catholics praying directly to God every hour of everyday, 24/7 and 365. So it is not like we can be accused of NOT praying directly to God. So again the idea our use of Saints as champion prayer warriors means the Church requires the use of intermediaries rings false.

The only remaining issue is whether or not it would be proper to ask someone who has passed on to pray for us. As far as scripture support for that, I see no other useful/valid explanation for how the "elders" Saint John depicts offering the prayers of the living to God got those requests unless someone living asked them to offer it to God on their behalf. I also see no valid reason to excuse the faithful departed from the call for the entire Body to pray for one another. It also seems fitting and honorable that they should be allowed such a role.

The fact remains that there is ONE and ONLY ONE account in the Bible of someone talking to the departed. That was Saul and he lost his life for it. You use a verse that talks about offering up prayers of the saints to set up a doctrine??? Revelation is a book of prophecy and it could mean ANYTHING. You use YOUR wisdom to make it mean something that it CAN NOT mean because it is CONTRARY to ALL the rest of scripture, instead of WAITING for God to reveal the meaning. That is what you get for using man's wisdom! The catholic church added the praying to the deceased along with multiple other pagan practices to unify the pagans and the Christians. If God wanted us to pray to the departed then we would SEE IT IN HIS WORD.

God has told us JUST how to worship Him. If you worship Him in ANY OTHER WAY then it is FALSE WORSHIP. Cain TRIED to worship God the way HE wanted to, but God HATED IT. In His grace He told Cain the right way to go, but he refused. God has told us how to worship Him but you catholics add to what He told us, making your worship FALSE AND WORTHLESS. We can ONLY do what He tells us and he NEVER told us to pray to the departed. He also NEVER told us to kill people for not accepting our dogmas, He also never told us that we could PAY MONEY TO GET OUT OF OUR SINS. He also never told us that Mary was immaculately conceived, He also never told us to baptize infants, and the list goes ON AND ON. But you catholics don't CARE what HE wants, you do things the way YOU WANT. Just like the women of today whose desires, according to God, is supposed to be to their husband, YOU (Catholic church) ARE CLAIMING God is your husband, yet you refuse to do what HE WANTS. You make YOURSELF THE HEAD. I see many people like this in the Bible, the first being Cain.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The point was that for many of these people assumed to be saints we do not actually know what has become of them or whether they can hear us, even if they are in Heaven. That's not the case with one's neighbor, even if we do not mention that the Bible recommends praying for one's neighbor and does not recommend praying to spirits.

Did Elijah and Moses not hear our Lord God talking on the mountain? Did the Apostles witnessing that not hear them talking?
Did the King not hear Samuel talking? Did the people shown talking in our Lord's story about the realm of the dead appear unaware/sleeping? Would God paint a false picture of that realm if it were not true they are aware? Are all the faithful not part of one Body? Would those, in whatever manner/place, said to be this day in Paradise not still be part of that same Body? Was that same Body not told to pray for one another? Did the earthly leaders of that Body not get told by God that what they bound on earth (say like pray for one another) be bound in Heaven? How do the elders get the requests from the living that Saint John has them offering up to God if those prayer requests had not been directed at them so that they might do what Saint John shows them doing?

The Church Fathers did not punt on these questions. Apparently in dropping the Church's teaching authority to follow Luther's lead those outside the Church have punted. So whose teachings do you follow in answering those questions?