This is an excellent observation, stompalot, and I think it is right on. Indeed, since scripture is not the entire Divine Revelation, this is exactly why it is so essential to have an authority to define what is to be believed. Good for you!
This is an excellent observation, stompalot, and I think it is right on. Indeed, since scripture is not the entire Divine Revelation, this is exactly why it is so essential to have an authority to define what is to be believed. Good for you!
We don’t. Our belief is based upon the Apostolic Tradition. It is likely that it took many years to see and understand the relationship between the Ark of the Old Covenant,and the Ark of the New.
This is an excellent observation, stompalot, and I think it is right on. Indeed, since scripture is not the entire Divine Revelation, this is exactly why it is so essential to have an authority to define what is to be believed. Good for you!
We don’t. Our belief is based upon the Apostolic Tradition. It is likely that it took many years to see and understand the relationship between the Ark of the Old Covenant,and the Ark of the New.
You know, you came to the right place to get your answers! No sin is allowed in heaven, so all those in heaven are sinless. This includes those who were assumed before Jesus was born also.
Mary was “full of grace”. Sin cannot exist where there is a fullness of grace.
What we know about God is only what He has revealed to us. We do not base our knowledge on “assumptions” but upon his revelation to us. That revelation is contained both in the Holy Scripture, and it the Apostolic Traditions.
I think you have it backwards, stompalot. The rejection of the teaching authority appointed by Jesus is what resulted in variations being formed.
This is a topic for another thread. It is true that Bibles were copied painstakingly by monks in candlelight, and were very expensive. Most church’s had to chain them to the podium. The fact that some priests engaged in immoral behavior, though a bad reflection on the church, is not a standard by which the teachings of the church should be evaluated.
This is an excellent observation, stompalot, and I think it is right on. Indeed, since scripture is not the entire Divine Revelation, this is exactly why it is so essential to have an authority to define what is to be believed. Good for you!
We don’t. Our belief is based upon the Apostolic Tradition. It is likely that it took many years to see and understand the relationship between the Ark of the Old Covenant,and the Ark of the New.
You know, you came to the right place to get your answers! No sin is allowed in heaven, so all those in heaven are sinless. This includes those who were assumed before Jesus was born also.
Mary was “full of grace”. Sin cannot exist where there is a fullness of grace.
What we know about God is only what He has revealed to us. We do not base our knowledge on “assumptions” but upon his revelation to us. That revelation is contained both in the Holy Scripture, and it the Apostolic Traditions.
This is simply not the case, stompalot. We believe this because it is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith that has been handed down to us by the Apostolic Tradition. This is the same source that gave you that bible you are thumping!
This is simply not the case, stompalot. We believe this because it is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith that has been handed down to us by the Apostolic Tradition. This is the same source that gave you that bible you are thumping!
For the record, I would like to state that the comment about the “OP probably believing dumb stuff” was uncalled for and inappropriate. I think you are sincerely inquiring.
I think you meant Elizabeth, dear, not Sara.
Please, posters, be more careful; take the extra minute to proofread your posts, and, if neccesary, make corrections. I know everyone is not a model speller, but mistakes can change the entire meaning of one’s message. (Someone used “mute” when he or she meant “moot” as in, “The point is moot”.)Do you reason that way? Do you look differently on Mary and the Saints? Why that dichotomy then?
What is your definition of necromancy?
Simple the Elders are alive and the saints are alive.
So that makes it that when Catholics pray to saints they pray to saints that are alive. Is anything wrong with that?
It comes from a song.What particular verse of the bible was that, DaisyD ?
My statement was unclear.
His body may be dead, but his spirit is alive and well, hopefully in heaven. So, asking him to intercede for us in not necromancy.
This is incorrect. The prayers of the people on earth (and in heaven) to God are represented in Revelation as words, not as the contents of bowls. The prayers which are represented as the contents of bowls, and which are delivered by those in heaven before God, are different prayers. They are the prayers of intercession from those on earth to those in heaven, which are delivered by those in heaven to God.
Daisy, have you ever had someone close to you die? If so, do you feel that once they are gone they are cut off from you forever here on earth or do you feel that somehow they can see and hear you? This is a non-religious question, by the way. It’s simply a question about what you think happens after we die. Are we completely cut off from earth or is there still some sort of connection?
)There is nothing in the bible that states that if you pray to someone who has died, they will bring the prayer to God the father.
Intercessor between God and man Heb 7:25
They died, but are alive Heaven.