An Observation

[LittleSoldier]

I used my old friend Google.

"Was Enoch Taken to Heaven?

Some people believe Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5 declare that God took Enoch to heaven. But is that what these verses say?

Genesis 5:24 tells us that “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” Hebrews 11:5 adds: “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

Some erroneously jump to the conclusion that Enoch was taken up into heaven, but notice the Bible nowhere says this. It simply says that God “took him.” It does not specify where he was taken.

Jesus Christ later states in the Gospel of John that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). One of the points He makes is that one passage of the Bible cannot contradict another passage.

This same Gospel of John reveals a startling fact very pertinent to this matter: “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13).

Clearly, Jesus Christ was the only human being who had ascended into heaven. The phrase “who is in heaven” lets us know that this was written by the apostle John after Christ’s return to heaven. So even as late as this statement, no human being—and that includes Enoch—had ascended into heaven.

We later read about Enoch’s fate in Hebrews 11:5: “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” The word rendered “taken” can also mean “transferred elsewhere.” And the New American Standard Bible says this was done “so that he would not see death”—a better translation than “did not,” as we know from the same chapter of Hebrews that he died.

Notice in verse 13 the summary given of all of the men and women of faith listed here, including Enoch: “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13). So Enoch definitely died as well as all the rest.

How, then, can it be that Enoch was transferred elsewhere so he wouldn’t see death? God doesn’t give us all the details of what happened, but a few scenarios have been proposed that do not conflict with the fact that Enoch died as the Bible says.

It may be that God transported Enoch elsewhere to keep him from being killed at a certain time—perhaps protecting him from martyrdom at the hands of angry persecutors who didn’t like his announcement of coming divine judgment (see Jude 14-16). God likewise supernaturally transported Elijah and Philip to other places on earth (see 2 Kings 2:11; Acts 8:39).

On the other hand, we should observe that Enoch died young for his time—at age 365 while those before and after him lived into their 800s and 900s. Because of this, some speculate that God “took him” from life prematurely so that he would not have to live out his remaining centuries in a miserable world (compare Isaiah 57:1-2). His next moment of consciousness will be the resurrection. In this case, “so that he would not see death” would refer to his not having to experience the process of dying—his life ending instantly.

Still others, putting the likelihood of Enoch experiencing persecution together with his early death, have concluded that Enoch was murdered—martyred for his preaching. Enoch being taken and not found would then refer to God removing his body and burying it—as happened with Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5-6).

In this case, Enoch being taken or transferred so that he would not see death is taken as separate matter—that of him being spiritually converted, transferred from the world’s ways to God’s way of living, so that he would not see ultimate death in the lake of fire (compare Colossians 1:13; John 8:51).

We don’t have enough details to know exactly what is intended. But we do know that Enoch did not skip death and go to heaven. He died, and no human being has ascended to heaven except Jesus Christ."

I still haven’t found anything about Elijah though, so I’ll keep researching.

Did you write the above? Or did you use your old friend Google as a search engine, find what you have posted above and steal it? I don’t see a reference here, so I must assume this is all your work. Is it? Or did someone else write it? If you wrote it why did you state that you used Google?

If someone else wrote it and you take credit, you are stealing (isn’t there a Commandment which states that we shouldn’t steal?) It is called plagiarism.

It’s fine to copy and paste and it’s fine to use someone else’s work. But to do so without giving that person credit for all the work he/she did is unethical and just not a nice thing to do. In fact, if you did this while in a college class (and were caught) you would most likely be booted right out of the college.

 

[LittleSoldier]

He may have explained it that way, but that is not what the Church said in the article. If that is the case, the the prayer would be Father in heaven please ask Mary to intercede on our behalf. I have not yet seen a prayer involving Mary that remotely resembles that model.

I have debated on the merits and some has made not and are now calling it what the church teaches. You cannot deny the use of divine qualities when you pray to Mary or another saint, omniscience and omnipresence are attributes that belong only to God.

Like I said before; it is your business and I am only pointing to that which I have learned and showing you what I have learned and to explain it in a contextual manner and provide the links for the information. Some have agreed.

I’m pretty much done with what I have learned and shared and I’m sure this topic will come along again so as I gain a more and complete understanding to the use of prayer in relation to saints and Mary, statutes and relics I might have more to add later.

God bless and good day.

Maybe when you come back you can follow the links provided to you in the post immediately preceding your post (the one I’m replying to). Then perhaps you can apologize.

 

[MacDaddy]

Really? What I said wasn’t in support the article, which you cited, as Church teaching…

The fact that the Church makes this distinction shows that Mary isn’t divine, nor is she to be given latria worship. If any person does that, he is guilty of idolatry and that it is the greatest of mortal sins due to violation of the first Commandment. It seems to mean that you are trying to prove that Catholics worship Mary in the latria sense by using Church sources about worship when in fact these sources deny that any latria worship is to be given to Mary.

Like I said before, she isn’t divine, and she need not to be divine to hear prayer. See my explanation in the previous post. If she hears prayers, it is God’s doing, not her own hence why there are no such prayers like you’ve mentioned because how Mary hears them is understood.

I challenge you to find me a reliable Catholic source that says Mary is divine or has divine qualities. You are welcome to debate this, depending on your degree of solipism, but you will not find any support in the Church.

You don’t need to if you already know what constitutes divine qualities, such as omnipresence or omniscience, both are needed for multiple prayers at one time to be heard by a saint, angel, or Mary. That is just a fact and I can’t change that.

 

[Fair_Lady]

For Pete’s sake, Fair Lady, why don’t you answer Kay Cee (and me, by default). None of the Scripture you have provided here says anything about praying to Mary (or the saints, for that matter. .

The scripture verses I provided have to do with reasons for using scripture as our final authority on all matters. They have nothing to do with praying to Mary, nor did I intend for them to have anything to do with praying to Mary. But if you were to study even those few references I gave you, it would show that scripture is superior over anything that man could possibly write . Because scripture comes from God, we can depend on it for absolute truth because God cannot lie. We may not be able to find a verse that says, “Thou shalt use scripture as final authority in all matters”, but as hown even by those few verses, there is plenty of evidence that it is wise for us to use the Bible as final aurhority.

Am I not allowed to discuss scripture? By doing so, you keep accusing me of “adding to scripture”. We find examples in the Bible that it is acceptable to reason out of scripture.

Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 18:19
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

 

[Padrej]

When are the seals opened? Before, during or after the tribulation? During, so I stand firm in His truth!

It is you that just passed judgment in similar fashion as Padrej. If you would please read the entire posts and dialogue, then I believe you will see the context and not pass judgment.

The seals are opened before the Tribulation. You have misread AGAIN. Even if it was during as you claim, It still justifies Saints interceding for the Living. Your own words condemn you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A rhetorical question is one that supposes an specific answer. I answered myself by saying I do not know with certainty and I don’t. Are you taking time to actually read the posts? “Muddying the waters” or trying to give context and understanding, which you seemed to have missed, I gave clear examples of the type of criticism that Jesus was speaking, taking the seat of God versus discerning. Again you presented yourself as one who reads the intent of the heart; the same error again to which both of you have judged by your own words. And I see you have done it again below.

The word “judge” is the word krino, and it is translated in a minimum of 15 different ways because it has such a broad meaning. We must understand the context to discern its meaning. The context is a contrast with the Pharisees all throughout this sermon. From a biblical context, Jesus is not forbidding all judgment, because He talks in so many other places of the necessity of judgments. We are not to judge people’s motives; God will do that. Have we all been guilty of doing this very thing? That’s is a rhetorical question.

If you like I can give you some clear teaching on these passages to assist you in discerning the passages and the contextual meaning of such.

Pr 18:4
The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters; The fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.

Read what your Church teaches here; it is spelled out in no uncertain terms and I do understand the dulia and hyperdulia is dependent on the lateria, whereas latria is independent. If you would have read the entire posts, then you would not be on an offensive; I try not to say that which is not true, but I am amazed at the denial on the part of Catholics on this topic, when it is so clearly taught. If I were a Catholic, I would say yes and explain the degrees and the dependence of dulia and hyperdulia on latria as being the end object/person of “affection”.

I’ll let God judge; won’t you?

MacDaddy-

In your opinion, do Catholics worship Mary as God?

Yes or no.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thank for for the technical correction, but Protestant church of England I thnk is a bit over the top.

Henry wrote a book On The Seven Sacraments, a defense of traditional doctrines against the teachings of Martin Luther. (The Pope rewarded him with the title, “Defender of the Faith,” a title born to this day by English monarchs.) More, discussing the book with Henry while it was still in rough draft, said, “I am troubled, because the book seems to me to give too much honor to the Pope.” Henry replied, "There is no such thing as giving too much honor to the Pope." source

Yes, back when Henry was --past tense–Catholic. You really need to bone up on your history; quite certainly and definitely Henry had ‘broken’ with the Catholic Church. He ‘had’ to; Anne Boleyn was pregnant in early 1533 and he needed her child to be ‘legitimate’. He declared himself (not the Pope) head of the Church then (as noted, 3 years prior to the execution of Tyndale). This was also the time when Thomas More was executed for not taking the oath–required of all officials and soon of all citizens–which gave the king supremacy over the Church of England, so no, "protestant Church of England’ is by no means over the top, it’s historic fact.

The same Pope (and his successors) whom Henry ‘honored’ he flouted because he wanted a SON and the Pope would not ‘release him’ through annulment to his legal marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

 

[Cristian_B]

Did you write the above? Or did you use your old friend Google as a search engine, find what you have posted above and steal it? I don’t see a reference here, so I must assume this is all your work. Is it? Or did someone else write it? If you wrote it why did you state that you used Google?

If someone else wrote it and you take credit, you are stealing (isn’t there a Commandment which states that we shouldn’t steal?) It is called plagiarism.

It’s fine to copy and paste and it’s fine to use someone else’s work. But to do so without giving that person credit for all the work he/she did is unethical and just not a nice thing to do. In fact, if you did this while in a college class (and were caught) you would most likely be booted right out of the college.

My bad… ucg.org/booklets/hl/enoch-heaven.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

My bad… ucg.org/booklets/hl/enoch-heaven.asp

Cristian-

I reviewed the article you linked to briefly, and the error is obvious: “ascended” and “assumed” are two different things. Ascending is something that I do under my own power. I can ascend a flight of stairs or a mountain, for example. Assumption is something that another does for me.

Therefore, we say that Jesus ascended into Heaven after the resurrection because He is God. We say that Mary, Enoch, Elijah and possibly Moses were assumed into heaven by God.

The article states:
“This same Gospel of John reveals a startling fact very pertinent to this matter: "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13)."
True. Jesus is the only one who has ascended into heaven. The article also states:
"Genesis 5:24 tells us that “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” Hebrews 11:5 adds: “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”
This is also true. Enoch was assumed into heaven by God.

There is no contradiction, and “scripture which cannot be broken” is not broken by these things. The only thing that appears to be broken is the understanding of those who authored this flawed attempt at exegesis.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

PS- In another booklet from that website, the United Church of God states:

If Christ’s promise that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail” against His Church should be considered a guarantee that those who believe on His name could never be misled or corrupted, then we would have every reason to accept the collective sum of the various divisions of Christianity as the Church that Jesus built. But He guaranteed no such thing.

I agree. Jesus did not build a “collective sum of the various divisitons” - He built one Church and that Church has a name, the name by which it has been known since the first century: the Catholic Church. Follow that path home…

 

[MacDaddy]

That’s exactly what the Church said in the article.

That’s your problem. You can’t wrap that brain of yours around the fact that God, if He chooses, may allow the human race or even the Angels to have certain qualities of His. You ever hear of free will? How about an eternal Spirit? Maybe we’re under the illusion of having those too huh.

Putting yourself in the place of God?

I suspect you’re here just to be a pest as I read your many trivial posts concerning this issue because deep down, I’m positive you really do know what we mean by the differences of worship we give to God, Mary, the Angels and Saints. Of course this is only if you let go of your bias and personal dogma of what God can and can’t share with His creatures. Then amazingly because of this, you distort what the Church says in that link by forcing your own context to it. You intentionally attempt to confuse things which are extremely easy to understand. The reality is, the Catholics on here don’t need you to tell us what the Church is saying. Thanks but no thanks.

Again passing judgment unfairly; I have explained every time the differences and have encouraged others to express those difference so people who are not Catholic will understand, but in your haste to judge you have obviously not read the posts in their context; this as the Lord said out of the mouth is the intent of the heart. This always seems to happen when someone jumps into a thread and doesn’t get up to speed before jumping in and always seems so inflammatory and judgmental. Some that have actually been here are saying they worship and have taken the suggestions, so they must have been able to discern my intent, but they have been in the thread and following along.

You interpret what the Church teaches as poorly as you do the Bible. But I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by this. Remove your fallible dogma and see the light.

Playing God again; do you understand how this makes you appear as a Christian?

 

[Kay_Cee]

What scripture says about itself (the word of God) is reason enough to look to it as our final authority on matters pertaining to spirituality.

Really? Where does scripture say this? Where does scripture say that “what scripture says about itself (the word of God) is reason enough to look to it as our final authority on matters pertaining to spirituality”? Please cite book, chapter, and verse that tells me this. Or are you once again insisting I base my beliefs on scripture alone while at the same time telling me to believe something nowhere found in scripture?

Just a few are listed here, followed by my comments, to make that point:

Luke 11:28
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Comment: Where does the word of God come from? God Himself. Where do we find the word of God today? We access what God has said In scripture. There is no other infallible source of God’s word.

Where does scripture say “There is no other infallible source of God’s word”? Please cite book, chapter, and verse. Or are you once again insisting I base my beliefs on scripture alone while at the same time telling me to beleive something nowher found in scripture?

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Comment: What can be more important to us than for us to gain a faith in God? I can’t think of anything. How do we come by that faith? By hearing the word of God. Where do we go to for what God has said about such matters? Scripture. There is no other infallible source of truth and we depend on it. Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” There is no other recorded work that holds a candle to that, but scripture will last for all eternity. Words of scripture come from God Himself. There is no other book like it.

Where does scripture say there is no other infallible source of truth but scripture? Please cite book, chapter, and verse. Or are you once again insisting I base my beliefs on scripture alone while at the same time telling me to believe something nowhere found in scripture?

1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Comment: Scripture is not the word of men, but it is the word of God. It is truth and there is no other source of infallible truth like it.

Again, where does scripture say, “There is no other source of infallible truth like it”? Please cite book, chapter, and verse. Or are you once again insisting I base my beliefs on scipture alone while at the same time telling me to believe something nowhere found in scripture?

1 John 2:3-5
We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
Comment: God’s law is written in scripture and has been given to us to teach us right from wrong. Had God left it to man to come up with a book of laws on His behalf, look out - imagination runs wild. We see that in religious systems where they don’t hold striclty to what God deems right or wrong in His sight. Suddenly there is “sin” in areas of no concern to God. The principles and laws of scripture are sufficient to guide us in all things. Above all, God’s standard is laid out clearly and precisely like no other book that man has come up with.

Where does scripture say, “The principles and laws of scripture are sufficient to guide us in all things”? Please cite book, chapter, and verse. Or are you again insisting I base my beliefs on scripture alone while at the same time telling me to believe something nowhere found in scripture?

These quotes from scripture do not at all address the other things you have told me and LittleSoldier previously. Instead of providing scripture, you keep giving me your personal opinion and acting as though I should believe you based purely on your say so–while at the same time telling me I should believe only what is in scripture!!! How can you not see that you are asking me to treat two sources as infallible (scripture and YOU) while at the same time telling me only one of those sources is infallible?

In posts 53, 61, 67, 78, and 83 you were asked to provide scripture to back up things you ask us to believe. (LittleSoldier has provided some examples in post 158, and I am now adding this post to the list.) Either provide the scripture or stop claiming everything we believe must be found in scripture. THIS IS NOW MY SEVENTH REQUEST.

 

[MacDaddy]

You did not answer some part of my question? Why the Bible and not the Koran? You’ll be amazed how God was revered in the Islamic book and the teachings are very attractive.

The Koran has nonsense and errors; therefore is not from God. Which Koran, the first was lost, then the second can; if that were the Bible there would be no Christianity. How many would actually adhere to the Koran if given the opportunity to have someone share the gospel of Jesus?

Who told you to buy the Bible? Is it by instinct, is it by others testimony? If I am a pagan and know nothing about Jesus how will I know which Bible translation to choose from the bookstore? Maybe the recomendation of the sales clerk? And if she’s catholic I will be ending up reading a catholic translation?We should also remember that even satan used the scriptures to tempt our Lord so how am I supposed to know if it is really the Holy spirit guiding me?These are just thoughts.

No one; I made the choice. If you are not sure the HS is guiding you, then maybe He is not. The Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are God’s children. I have that experience in my walk continually, therefore I have no doubts because I made the choice to fully deny myself and put my life in the hands of the Lord Jesus.

My first Bible was from Evangelicals with The Gideons markings ( KJV ) edition. I was reading a Protestant bible for more than ten years before I bought my first Bible Good News Bible ( Todays English Version with Deuterocanonicals) , Its starting to worn out and my eyes started to blur so my wife bought me 2 years ago a bigger one NRSV CE.

There are many things that we can read and give our own interpretation of verses in scriptures. John 3:16 is a classic example that when someone reads it says that there’s nothing to do anymore all I have to do is believe. Is it? This is my personal belief, all things on Heaven and earth are born out of God’s love. And because of His love He wants all men to be saved and come to know the truth. This love is the very reason why Jesus came into the world to save sinners like me and others who admits they have sinned.

John 3:16 is accurate, but the key is what does it mean to believe? Once one understands that, then the whole picture of the Gospel is revealed.

Just an opinion…If we really wanted to worship God, we must do ***everything *** out of love. He can not save us if we refuse to be saved. You are right God is not hiding his will to save us, but are we doing our part to be saved. Are we obeying his will? Are we mercenaries doing the things he wanted because of the reward waiting for us? Are we slaves doing everything He tells us because we fear his wrath. Are we children of God because we do the things we do because we love him? :bounce:

I do nothing out of fear anymore because I am sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day of my glorification as it is written; this is the blessing that come from faith alone and obedience to the Lord. How much is God’s part and how much is your part in order to gain heaven?

 

[MacDaddy]

The seals are opened before the Tribulation. You have misread AGAIN. Even if it was during as you claim, It still justifies Saints interceding for the Living. Your own words condemn you.

Here are your errors; In order for the saints to intercede they must possess qualities that only God has. If you pray out loud, then they must be omnipresent. If you were to pray in silence, then they would have to be omniscience and if you prayed for something like healing of a sick person, then you have to expect them to be omnipotent. All of these are divine qualities of God.

All that education and you are going to maintain that the seals are open before the tribulation? You are in the sole minority.

It is sad when a person is in a position to be a spokes person for God passes judgment as though they were God on 3 occasions now and have been shown from Scripture their error and from reasoning that they are in error and cannot apologize in humility.

Who did Jesus always pray to? Did He pray to Abraham, Moses, Issac or anyone else except the Father? When the Apostles ask Him to teach them how to pray; what was Jesus response? Did the Apostles follow that advice or did they stray and pray to OT fathers or martyred saints like Stephen?

Now I must ask you two questions. How were you saved? How did you deal with the issue of sin before God?

 

[MacDaddy]

MacDaddy-

In your opinion, do Catholics worship Mary as God?

Yes or no.

no

 

[MacDaddy]

Yes, back when Henry was --past tense–Catholic. You really need to bone up on your history; quite certainly and definitely Henry had ‘broken’ with the Catholic Church. He ‘had’ to; Anne Boleyn was pregnant in early 1533 and he needed her child to be ‘legitimate’. He declared himself (not the Pope) head of the Church then (as noted, 3 years prior to the execution of Tyndale). This was also the time when Thomas More was executed for not taking the oath–required of all officials and soon of all citizens–which gave the king supremacy over the Church of England, so no, "protestant Church of England’ is by no means over the top, it’s historic fact.

The same Pope (and his successors) whom Henry ‘honored’ he flouted because he wanted a SON and the Pope would not ‘release him’ through annulment to his legal marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

If you say so.

 

[MacDaddy]

Cristian-

I reviewed the article you linked to briefly, and the error is obvious: “ascended” and “assumed” are two different things. Ascending is something that I do under my own power. I can ascend a flight of stairs or a mountain, for example. Assumption is something that another does for me.

Therefore, we say that Jesus ascended into Heaven after the resurrection because He is God. We say that Mary, Enoch, Elijah and possibly Moses were assumed into heaven by God.

The article states:
“This same Gospel of John reveals a startling fact very pertinent to this matter: "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13)."
True. Jesus is the only one who has ascended into heaven. The article also states:
"Genesis 5:24 tells us that “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” Hebrews 11:5 adds: “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”
This is also true. Enoch was assumed into heaven by God.

There is no contradiction, and “scripture which cannot be broken” is not broken by these things. The only thing that appears to be broken is the understanding of those who authored this flawed attempt at exegesis.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

PS- In another booklet from that website, the United Church of God states:

I agree. Jesus did not build a “collective sum of the various divisitons” - He built one Church and that Church has a name, the name by which it has been known since the first century: the Catholic Church. Follow that path home…

I have looked at this in recent weeks on Enoch; He walked with God for 300 plus years and based on Hebrews text, he was brought into heaven because of His faith and God pleased to do so. This is indicative of the Bible to make such things so clear when you get down to studying the context and whole picture. This is why I am convinced that Mary was not assumed because the Bible tells us those who were.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hey, you needn’t post as though it were only ‘my’ say-so. It’s historical fact. If you want to come along and start accusing Catholics of putting someone to death, and then try to glide over the fact that --goodness gracious–it wasn’t ‘Catholics’ who were the ones responsible, then you’re disingenuous at best and unreliable in your ‘facts’ most certainly.

Making errors is one thing. Making an error and refusing to own up to it is something else. It casts doubt onto everything you say when you can’t acknowledge an error. If you don’t acknowledge this error, what **else **won’t you acknowledge? If you got this ‘fact’ wrong, what else might you have gotten wrong?

This is not ‘attacking’, it’s not directed at you personally, I’m not casting aspersions on your character or trying to be mean–I’m simply pointing out that if a person–any person, not just ‘macdaddy’-- makes an error and doesn’t acknowledge it, then he is not trustworthy on any fact.

And please, feel free to go to the Oxford Dictionary of History in order to verify ‘what I said’.

 

[Padrej]

Here are your errors; In order for the saints to intercede they must possess qualities that only God has. If you pray out loud, then they must be omnipresent. If you were to pray in silence, then they would have to be omniscience and if you prayed for something like healing of a sick person, then you have to expect them to be omnipotent. All of these are divine qualities of God.

All that education and you are going to maintain that the seals are open before the tribulation? You are in the sole minority.

It is sad when a person is in a position to be a spokes person for God passes judgment as though they were God on 3 occasions now and have been shown from Scripture their error and from reasoning that they are in error and cannot apologize in humility.

Who did Jesus always pray to? Did He pray to Abraham, Moses, Issac or anyone else except the Father? When the Apostles ask Him to teach them how to pray; what was Jesus response? Did the Apostles follow that advice or did they stray and pray to OT fathers or martyred saints like Stephen?

Now I must ask you two questions. How were you saved? How did you deal with the issue of sin before God?

You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word “intercede” You do not have to have a “divine nature” to intercede. You yourself can say an intercessory prayer on behalf of someone else. If you can say an intercessory prayer why cannot a saint?

As to me being a “spokesperson” for God, a person with ordination credentials (such as I have) has been endued by the church with authority to speak on behalf of God’s church when it comes to spiritual matters. When I posted warnings from scripture, I was not acting as spokesperson for God but for the church. That is where you err. I freely admit that I am a sinner, just like the rest; however, pastors, priests, bishops have been given the authority to speak on behalf of the church in these matters. It has nothing to do with humility.

To your saved/sin questions: I was saved by a confession of faith the the Lord Jesus Christ and Baptized with a believer’s baptism ( I was not baptized as an infant). As to sin I confess my sins before God and man; God, that I may be forgiven of Him and Man that I may be forgiven of them.

All that education and you are going to maintain that the seals are open before the tribulation? You are in the sole minority.

Give me the evidence that I am in the SOLE MINORITY on the seals. There are 5 accepted ways now that theologians interpret Revelation, there was only 3 when I started in seminary.** I DARE YOU!!! Give me evidence to prove me wrong.**

 

[FrJohnB]

Here are your errors; In order for the saints to intercede they must possess qualities that only God has. If you pray out loud, then they must be omnipresent. If you were to pray in silence, then they would have to be omniscience and if you prayed for something like healing of a sick person, then you have to expect them to be omnipotent. All of these are divine qualities of God.

All that education and you are going to maintain that the seals are open before the tribulation? You are in the sole minority.

It is sad when a person is in a position to be a spokes person for God passes judgment as though they were God on 3 occasions now and have been shown from Scripture their error and from reasoning that they are in error and cannot apologize in humility.

Who did Jesus always pray to? Did He pray to Abraham, Moses, Issac or anyone else except the Father? When the Apostles ask Him to teach them how to pray; what was Jesus response? Did the Apostles follow that advice or did they stray and pray to OT fathers or martyred saints like Stephen?

Now I must ask you two questions. How were you saved? How did you deal with the issue of sin before God?

Padrej is hardly the one in the Minority on the Tribulation. There are many views on this and his is one of the accepted views.
What is truly sad is you accuse him of being in error when you are the one in pride pointing out others errors like you are sitting on the left hand of God. Padrej has been accurate in his exegesis of scripture where you have said that he is not, so it is YOU who needs to humbly apologize.

BTW Why should it matter to YOU in what manner Padrej was saved and how he deals with sin? Sounds like judgmental questions to me.

 

[Des]

Putting yourself in the place of God?

lol, why, because I said God, if He wills it, can share certain qualities He has with us? You dodged everything I said so I’ll ask again. Is your self awareness and free will qualities that God also has? Does this then prove God can give His creatures some of His own Divine qualities. And finally, who are you to infallibly state that a certain amount of prayers, cannot be heard to those in Heaven for the good of the Church. All you can do it voice your opinion with a ‘maybe’. Nothing else.

Again passing judgment unfairly; I have explained every time the differences and have encouraged others to express those difference so people who are not Catholic will understand,

You’ve explained nothing except your eagerness in wanting others to say ‘worship’ which may cause any wandering protestant eyes to get confused. But first, that context has to be explained as others have been attempting to do.

I must believe now though, that you will accept when we state (using our understanding of worship in it’s proper context of course) that you worship the Apostles you won’t disagree correct? I mean how can you not, since you have such a full understanding of that article right.

Playing God again; do you understand how this makes you appear as a Christian?

Yes MacDaddy. Anyone who tells you that you’re wrong on your interpretation is playing God while you in turn are not when you do the same thing.