you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it. (2)

[Montalban]

Well, since you apparently missed it, I referred to research on how the culture was in the days of Paul. If you must have some book title and page and all, I guess I could dig that up for you. There's a lot of bible commentaries that adress these things.

But hey, all the while you're complaining that I'm not answering your questions in an honest way, you're not answering mine at all... why do YOU believe these things are NOT cultural?

You're not answering mine, so I don't see any reason to answer yours, you just go on asking.

You've not shown that Paul's particular direction on hair was cultural. Of course there were cultural things in his day - another of your many truisms.

You've not answered several I've asked before you asked me that. All you did is say you're trying your best.

I expect now you'll ask "What questions?" It's a typical ploy. Ignore them long enough then forget them.

You've also not acknowledged your mistake about tithes which I evidenced from the Bible.

 

[Montalban]

And your faith is NOT ciruclar because...?

Are you admitting your reasons were circular, or not?

 

[Montalban]

But He must have heard me the first thousand
times I asked right?

If you believe you're saved then there's no point praying, at all.

 

[Montalban]

nope. I may have prayed about the same things, that required.

never written the prayer down for latter use.

you compare apples and oranges, and then call us hypocrites for it.

Why would you pray at all, if you're already saved?

 

[benedictaoo]

have we all? you sure?

If you said, "I love you Jesus", or "I praise your Holy name," more than once, you have prayed repetitiously.

 

[benedictaoo]

nope. I may have prayed about the same things, that required.

never written the prayer down for latter use.

you compare apples and oranges, and then call us hypocrites for it.

But where is the sin in praying a written prayer from the heart?

Didn't Jesus recite a prayer that was written down for later use?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Our Father, who art in Heaven
Hallowed be thy name
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done
On Earth as it is in Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from the evil one.

I'd be surprised to find a Christian that hasn't prayed this at least once.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

you've found one.

I don't pray this. Jesus was instructing in form, not in exact words.

God-willing, I will continue to pray for mercy, continue to pray for my family and those I love, my enemies, for peace, for a good defense at the dread judgement seat of Christ, for a guardian of my soul to watch over me, for the sick, the suffering . . . until Christ returns, fervently, effectually.

I am happy to hear that many only need one prayer to be effectual. May I ask each of you to pray for me, once only, that I may receive mercy.

Love,
Christina

you do understand that it is not the praying about something more than once that I reject, but repeating the same prayer over and over?

You are correct also, Uphill Battle, that my tutu was mocking. Please forgive me.

don't worry about it. I'm a hypocrite about that anyways.

Uphill Battle, what reason do you have for believing only in Scripture?

I do believe I explained that before. Scripture is the only thing I believe is trustworthy for making "rules of faith."

If you believe you're saved then there's no point praying, at all.

where you get this from, I don't know.

Why would you pray at all, if you're already saved?

why wouldn't we?

If you said, "I love you Jesus", or "I praise your Holy name," more than once, you have prayed repetitiously.

that isn't the point. It's the scripted prayers I reject. Not saying the same words here or there, nor is it about praying about the same issue.

It's the following of a script I reject.

But where is the sin in praying a written prayer from the heart?

none. I've never suggested someone is sinning by doing so. if it were ME using it, I'd be sinning. I'd be honouring with my lips only.

Didn't Jesus recite a prayer that was written down for later use?

no.

 

[sunlover1]

Uphill Battle, what reason do you have for believing only in Scripture?

Dont you?

If you believe you're saved then there's no point praying, at all.

Why's that? He said to pray without ceasing.
Who else am I to go to to say thank you for
that beautiful tree or for this cold snowy day,
or who else would I go to to tell my deepest
secrets, to ask for help with a problem.
Why do you say that there's no point Montalban?
You've always seemed reasonable to me.

 

[Philothei]

So... If I say thank you in a formal manner through a "script" that meant a lot to me.. to God ... then my prayers are not accepted?

If I pray with the psalms and I mean (as I identify with the psalmist) what I say my prayers are "gentile"... and repetitious? If that was true Christ or the Apostles whould have specified "hey people do not pray any more with the psalms...no good"

And UB you are totally rediculous about the Lord's prayer being a "formula" for prayer....Where does it say that Christ said...:


"hey do not pray that actual prayer just find your own ... based on mine... but hey do not repeat it, you are sinning if you do".

Your reasoning does not agree with the spirit of the Gospel that you take a verse from the Bible and you make it a "dogma" about prayer to suit your individual interpretation....It also does not agree with the practice of the early Church that they did gather "in his name" and "recited" the same prayers and did patake the EUcarist. They did recite collectively the same prayers in praise, thanksgiving and petitioned the Lord... The early document such as Didaskalia talk about this...


They did pray the Lord's prayer and they did "model" more prayers after the Lord's prayer with the four components: doxology, petition, asking for forgiveness, giving thanks... that most of Christian worshiping expression is composed.

I do believe that if you think that you are already saved there is no really any need for you to pray.

Also anything you pray is a repetition ...since only words and sentences change but the context has to be in the "formula" of our Father... and also you can only pray once for your i.e. father who is sick... or your child... and so on...
You should also pray once in your life for the peace in the world etc... and watch not to repeat your self...

 

[Montalban]

where you get this from, I don't know.


why wouldn't we?

Because it doesn't affect you in any way, 'cause you're already saved. Your debt's been paid for by Jesus and you don't owe anything more
[/QUOTE]

 

[Montalban]

Dont you?

No. Scripture says it doesn't have everything Jesus said and did.

Why's that?

If you believe you're already saved, what would be the point?

 

[sunlover1]

No. Scripture says it doesn't have everything Jesus said and did.

It does indeed say that.

We dont have anything else
that's infallible. so while we
look at historical documents,
we rely on Scripture.

If you believe you're already saved, what would be the point?

Because prayer is for those who are saved.

Prayer isnt about salvation,
it's about relationship and transformation.
We enter His gates with thanksgiving,
and enter His courts with praise.
People who arent saved, dont believe
in God and so wouldnt pray to God.

sunlover

 

[Montalban]

It does indeed say that.

We dont have anything else
that's infallible. so while we
look at historical documents,
we rely on Scripture.

What then did the church rely on ...?
a) to teach Chrisitanity before the Bible
and
b) to choose which books to put in the Bible

I take it that when Paul mentions in a letter he previously preached to a community that he taught fallibly, but the moment he wrote it down, it became infallible!

Because prayer is for those who are saved.

That doesn't explain it's point. If it doesn't matter what you do, because you're already saved, then why do it?

Prayer isnt about salvation,
it's about relationship and transformation.

How are you transformed if you're already saved? Is there like SALVATION+ out there?

We enter His gates with thanksgiving,
and enter His courts with praise.
People who arent saved, dont believe
in God and so wouldnt pray to God.

So when Jesus taught "The Lord's Prayer" and people said it they were saved then? (prior to the resurrection)

 

[benedictaoo]

none. I've never suggested someone is sinning by doing so. if it were ME using it, I'd be sinning. I'd be honouring with my lips only.

So you understand that it's you and it's not the practice? That's good because putting down another Christian's practice is not cool.

And why can't you pray a prayer from the heart? Why couldn't you pray the words of someone else and mean it? When Billy Graham leads ppl in prayer, does not all pray along?

no

Jesus taught us the Our Father and that is an absolute perfect prayer, so you are mistaken.

He did recite a prayer that was written down for us to pray for all ages.

Is there any reason you can not pray the words that Jesus taught us all from the heart?

And have you ever prayed a psalm? The Lord is my shepard, i shalt not want?

Even Jesus prayed a psalm as He hung on the cross.

So there is nothing here for you to object to, really uphill, there just isn't anything in our prayer life that you can rationally be critical of.

 

[Montalban]

so while we
look at historical documents,
we rely on Scripture.

Paul quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

When he did so, he based it on no written word. So it was fallible. But, the moment it's written down it suddenly becomes infallible, even though he's not citing any written source!

How strange!

 

[Montalban]

Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul.

Thus again, according to Sunlover's theory, it was flawed teaching when told to Paul, flawed when he repeated it. But, miraculously infallible when it was written down!

 

[sunlover1]

What then did the church rely on ...?
a) to teach Chrisitanity before the Bible
and
b) to choose which books to put in the Bible

Scripture.
What else would they use?

I take it that when Paul mentions in a letter he previously preached to a community that he taught fallibly, but the moment he wrote it down, it became infallible!

Why would the teaching be fallible orally but
infallible when written? It's the same teaching.

That doesn't explain it's point. If it doesn't matter what you do, because you're already saved, then why do it?

It does explain the point, but you might not understand
my words, or maybe for some reason you disagree.
Before I was saved it didnt matter what I did.
Now it matters very much what I do to know God
better.
I'm now a new creation in Christ Jesus, living an
entirely new life. I need God's help to have success
in this world, to be as a light shining in the universe,
in the midst of a crooked and depraved generation.

How are you transformed if you're already saved? Is there like SALVATION+ out there?

We're transformed more and more into His image.
Salvation plus??
An example would be the theif on the cross.
He was 'saved' that day, but had he lived,
he'd be transformed more and more into the image
of Christ.
We start out as babes in Christ.

So when Jesus taught "The Lord's Prayer" and people said it they were saved then? (prior to the resurrection)

Why would non Christians want to pray to God?

 

[sunlover1]

Paul quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

When he did so, he based it on no written word. So it was fallible. But, the moment it's written down it suddenly becomes infallible, even though he's not citing any written source!

How strange!

King James Bible
Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

World English Bible
Therefore he says, "Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

American Standard Version
Wherefore he'saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Wherefore he saith: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee.


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
14. Wherefore-referring to the whole foregoing argument (Eph 5:8, 11, 13). Seeing that light (spiritual) dispels the pre-existing darkness, He (God) saith . (compare the same phrase, Eph 4:8). Awake-The reading of all the oldest manuscripts is "Up!" or, "Rouse thee!" a phrase used in stirring men to activity. The words are a paraphrase of Isa 60:1, 2, not an exact quotation. The word "Christ," shows that in quoting the prophecy, he views it in the light thrown on it by its Gospel fulfilment. As Israel is called on to "awake" from its previous state of "darkness" and "death" (Isa 59:10; 60:2), for that her Light is come; so the Church, and each individual is similarly called to awake. Believers are called on to "awake" out of sleep; unbelievers, to "arise" from the dead (compare Mt 25:5; Ro 13:11; 1Th 5:6, with Eph 2:1).

Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul.

Thus again, according to Sunlover's theory, it was flawed teaching when told to Paul, flawed when he repeated it. But, miraculously infallible when it was written down!

I didnt say that. And that's not what I think, and
so not 'my theory'.
I said:

We dont have anything else
that's infallible. so while we
look at historical documents,
we rely on Scripture.

 

[sunlover1]

Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul.

Thus again, according to Sunlover's theory, it was flawed teaching when told to Paul, flawed when he repeated it. But, miraculously infallible when it was written down!

Didnt say that either.

 

[Koey]

Response to post on the old thread: I highly regard the theology of the Orthodox Church. However, if you read the Bible, you will see even there a great deal of difference between the way things were done in Scripture and current Orthodox Church practice.

Yes, it's my opinion, but I think it's rather obvious that...

• in Scripture there is no mandate for clergy to wear any fancy clothing
• in the Bible there is no mandate for bishops to be unmarried
• in Holy Scripture there are no rules about icons
• in the Bible there is no mention of praying to Mary or any Saints in heaven

Need I go on? Of course not. Anyone who is familiar with any part of Orthodox or Catholic practice is quite able to make a parallel list comparing those practices with Holy Scripture. There is a clear and marked difference between original church practice and that of today's churches -- any churches.

Are they therefore not Christian? That is a different question for a different discussion. I believe they are, but that they have followed more closely the example of the Pharisees in creating burdensome traditions than Christ.