Hail Mary

[Angels_Unaware]

I just demonstrated to you that the early Christians did not believe what you believe about the communion of saints and that belief was based in Scripture. The fact that you say the Scripture does not support it is meaningless. That is your opinion, and your opinion is not that of the early Church. How do you respond to that? You are telling us that you who were born 2000 years after the ECFs understand scripture where they do not. How do you justify that argument? You really propose that you have a superior understanding of scripture than those who were taught directly by the Apostles? Do you not fathom the problem with that argument, and the inherent arrogance and pride?

You did not respond to this very profound argument at all. All you have done is demand that the communion of saints somehow usurps Jesus, and yet the people who knew Jesus clearly disagree.
JA4:

The problem is that we are separated. The dead are no longer a part of our lives. Your dead ancestors from a couple of hundred years ago play no part in your life today. Nor in mine.

You have absolutely no basis on which to make that claim. That is a totally unsupported argument. The ECF quote scripture on which to make their claim to believe in the communion of saints, and their basis is just as justifiable as the trinity, (and more extant then the belief in common Protestant doctrines such as the Rapture)but the issue is not simply scripture, it is their testimony as those who know the apostles personally that this is part of truth.

On what basis do you deny that truth? On what basis do you deny the testimony of the first Church? Certainly you cannot deny their testimony on the basis of scripture, because the scripture supports their argument. Your only argument is that you deny the testimony of the first church because you understand the meaning of scripture better than they do.

 

[justasking4]

Angels Unaware;4355511]
just demonstrated to you that the early Christians did not believe what you believe about the communion of saints and that belief was based in Scripture

.
What “early Christians” are you referring to that believed that you could pray to another Christian who had died? Do you have some dates and who said this?

The fact that you say the Scripture does not support it is meaningless. That is your opinion, and your opinion is not that of the early Church. How do you respond to that?

I know of no verse that shows someone praying to a dead Christians and asking for help? For example, are there any prayers to Stephen who was stoned to death in Acts?

You are telling us that you who were born 2000 years after the ECFs understand scripture where they do not. How do you justify that argument?

We actually have a better understanding of the past than a ECF because we have more manuscripts, more knowledgeable people, a greater understanding of the times than a ECF who had limitations of resources and time.

You really propose that you have a superior understanding of scripture than those who were taught directly by the Apostles? Do you not fathom the problem with that argument, and the inherent arrogance and pride?

Its not about arrogance or pride but about how much we have advanced. Take the Scriptures themselves. The church in the early centuries had to copy by hand the Scriptures. The people themselves did not have a copy of the Scriptures in their homes. Compare that with today. I myself must have over 12 Bibles in my house. I don’t think that is that unusual. I can pick up and read the words of the Lord Jesus any time i want to. That was not possible in the early centuries. I could go on with other advantages we have over the ECF’s.

You did not respond to this very profound argument at all. All you have done is demand that the communion of saints somehow usurps Jesus, and yet the people who knew Jesus clearly disagree.

I have asked for just one verse of someone in the NT that is praying to Mary and have yet to see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JA4
The problem is that we are separated. The dead are no longer a part of our lives. Your dead ancestors from a couple of hundred years ago play no part in your life today. Nor in mine.

Angels Unaware
You have absolutely no basis on which to make that claim. That is a totally unsupported argument.

Are you saying you still have a relationship with your dead ancestors? If so what is the nature of it?

The ECF quote scripture on which to make their claim to believe in the communion of saints, and their basis is just as justifiable as the trinity, (and more extant then the belief in common Protestant doctrines such as the Rapture)but the issue is not simply scripture, it is their testimony as those who know the apostles personally that this is part of truth.

On what basis do you deny that truth?

I deny it because its not in Scripture.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

If you don’t understand the letter of the text you will not understand the spirit of it either. According to the ECFs, it’s you who doesn’t understand the letter or the text.This is why we must not go beyond what is written. Then you necessarily deny the trinity, because it goes “beyond” what is written. Surely you are capable of understanding the difference between elucidation and heresy.To do so invites error in belief and practice. As you may know the Scriptures are primarily about the Lord Jesus and what He has done for us. In terms of needing spiritual help He alone has promised to help us since He alone is our Great High Priest Who intercedes before the Father for us**. If we took this argument to its logical conclusion then it should not be permissable to ask anyone who is alive** to intercede for you in prayer, since you have Jesus, He alone is our Advocate. We are in communion with Him, He is the head, and He allows the intercession of angels and saints. Just as we are His hands on earth! It wasn’t Jesus who fed the dying in India, it was Jesus through Mother TeresaWith this we need no other help from Mary or any saint who has died. He is more than sufficent.
.

Who taught you your theology? You have not surmised these positions on your own. Why is your authority legitimate, but the Church’s authority is not?

 

[Angels_Unaware]

.
What “early Christians” are you referring to that believed that you could pray to another Christian who had died? Do you have some dates and who said this?

If you had been actually reading this thread you would see that others have told you that there is arcehological evidence of asking for the intercession of saints. It is in the tomb of the martyrs, and it dates to the 1st century. They also adopted the practice of making relics from the bones of saints. Of course, that is not the only evidence, there are later century writings that pre-date the canon, as I also pointed out not more than a few posts back. I am frankly shocked that you apparently glossed right over that major point of argument. That’s what happens when you have condescending “discussions” rather than open-minded debates.
JA4:

I know of no verse that shows someone praying to a dead Christians and asking for help? For example, are there any prayers to Stephen who was stoned to death in Acts?

Actually his bones were made into relics. I’ve already addressed the fact we do not need a Bible verse explicity stating truth to determine a truth is consistent with the historic Christian faith and the whole body of Scripture.
JA4:

We actually have a better understanding of the past than a ECF because we have more manuscripts, more knowledgeable people, a greater understanding of the times than a ECF who had limitations of resources and time.

Excellent point. That historical evidence allows us to know without any shadow of a doubt the first Christians believed in the communion of saints. The leaders of the Reformation did not have this historical evidence.
JA4:

I have asked for just one verse of someone in the NT that is praying to Mary and have yet to see it.

First you tell me where the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura.

Many believe Mary was alive when the first manuscripts were recorded. The evidence of devotion to her is clear from history of the beliefs and practices of the early Christians.
JA4:

Are you saying you still have a relationship with your dead ancestors? If so what is the nature of it?

Yes, Justasking4, I have a voodoo shrine in my bedroom where I sacrifice chickens to my ancestors. I am just pretending to be a Christian. (We all know that Catholics aren’t really Christians. It doesn’t matter what they say. We know what’s going on in the minds and hearts of those poor lost souls better than they do.)
JA4:

I deny it because its not in Scripture.

It is in scripture. You deny the tesitmony and interpretations of Scripture of the people who were taught directly from those who received the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts, and you do so out of sinful pride.

 

[guanophore]

JA4, you gave the impression that you are very knowledgeable about theology. You did this yesterday when I suggested you did not adequately comprehend that the theology of Mary as defined by the Catholic church (though subject to abuses) flows logically from principles and precepts in scripture.

Now, you seem to fail to grasp the relevance of the first ECF to use the phrase that was adopted as part of the Nicene Creed, “the communion of saints”.

The relevance of this ECF is that 1) he was orthodox and trinitarian and in good standing with the Church in the late 300 century AD. 2) the canon was closed during his lifetime. 3) the teaching of the “communion of saints” as a literal understanding of Hebrews 12:1 was adopted into a Christian creed.

We can conclude, definitely, that the Catholic interpretation of the Communion of Saints, as taught today, can be traced to the closing of the canon.

Therefore, this Sacred Tradition had as much consensus as the canon at the time it was adopted as part of the Nicene Creed.

As a Protestant scholar, you should be able to trace the denial of the literal communion of saints after death to the Enlightenment. Suddenly someone determined that the practice of asking for the prayers of the saints was superstitious, ordinary, and heathen-like. That determination was made on the basis of cultural prejudices, not on the basis of continuity with historical Church teaching.

ja4 is not a protestant scholar. ja4 knows very little about theology at all. ja4 is not here to learn about the Catholic faith, but to post detraction against the Church.

This statement reveals that you have absolutely no education in formal theology or Church history. Nobody who had even a cursory understanding of the formation of the Church could say this. Please do not miss my last post! I’d like to see you attempt to explain how the communion of saints is “Un-Scriptural” when the communion of saints was defined and made part of the Creed at the same time the canon was closed!

Now you got it!

 

[guanophore]

And who is Saint Nicetas of Remesiana?

Do your own homework, ja4. We have been spoon feeding you for two years, and you keep spitting it out in our faces.

Is his intterpretation of Hebrews 12:1 the offical interpretation for the entire church?

Scripture is interpreted in the light of the Apostolic Teaching. It is the teaching that is official for the entire Church.

The Teaching of the Church is that saints are in communion with one another, not separated by death,a nd that the whole Body of Christ is joined together, and each action on the part of one affects the whole.

They are irelevant to the topics.
Do all the individual writings of the ECF support the Catholic church?

They are irelevant to the topics.

ja4, nothing you have posted in this thread in the last 100 posts is relevant to the topic!

What do you mean by “communion of saints”? How is it defined and do you have a couple of examples?

It has not changed since the last couple dozen times we gave it to you.

The problem is that we are separated. The dead are no longer a part of our lives. Your dead ancestors from a couple of hundred years ago play no part in your life today. Nor in mine.

I admit that I have some ancestors that cannot contribute to me today.

We believe what the scriptures say, that those who are in Christ never die (do not experience the second death) and that death cannot separate us from Christ, and that we are members one of another. The Body of Christ is alive, He does not have dead parts and live parts attached to one another.

If you don’t understand the letter of the text you will not understand the spirit of it either. This is why we must not go beyond what is written. To do so invites error in belief and practice. As you may know the Scriptures are primarily about the Lord Jesus and what He has done for us. In terms of needing spiritual help He alone has promised to help us since He alone is our Great High Priest Who intercedes before the Father for us. He alone is our Advocate. With this we need no other help from Mary or any saint who has died. He is more than sufficent.

My strong advice for you, ja4, is to go it alone with Christ. Don’t try to rely on anyone for help, since you believe it is a sin, that would lead you astray.

The warning of the Scriptures that warn of false teachers coming into the church and decieving.

It is ok, ja4. We know you are here, and we are on guard! :knight2:

Problably because it cannot be supported biblically i.e. communication with the dead.

You are right. We communicate only with the living, for all are alive unto Him.

 

[Lampo]

I deny it because its not in Scripture.

You are inconsistent. Do you deny the list of inspired books of the Bible?

 

[Lampo]

ja4 is not here to learn about the Catholic faith, but to post detraction against the Church.

My question to that is, why hasn’t she been banned then? If this type of behavior is allowed on CAF, then I will accept it and move on and quit harping on her deceitful motives.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
I deny it because its not in Scripture.

Lampo;
You are inconsistent. Do you deny the list of inspired books of the Bible?

I deny the idea that a person is to communicate with a dead saint via prayer. That is not in Scripture.

 

[Lampo]

I deny the idea that a person is to communicate with a dead saint via prayer.

That’s your prerogative, but you did not answer my question. Furthermore, no one is REQUIRED to pray to the saints in Heaven.

That is not in Scripture.

So what?

I’ll ask you again. Since you deny certain truths revealed by God because they are not explicitly in Scripture, do you deny the list of inspired books of the Bible?

Another question you haven’t answered: Do you try to prove that the Catholic Church is not what she claims? Or that her teachings are false?

 

[AshleyBelle]

I deny the idea that a person is to communicate with a dead saint via prayer. That is not in Scripture.

You’re right, scripture does not ask us to speak with the dead.

It DOES encourage that we speak with the LIVING in Christ

 

[FollowTheWay]

I dont believe the Catholic church is what it claims to be.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

 

[justasking4]

Angels Unaware;4354073]JA4, you gave the impression that you are very knowledgeable about theology. You did this yesterday when I suggested you did not adequately comprehend that the theology of Mary as defined by the Catholic church (though subject to abuses) flows logically from principles and precepts in scripture.

How does it flow logically from principles and precepts in scripture Mary’s immaculate conception, her assumption and prayers to her when there is not one verse in the entire Scripture that comes close to even hinting at these things?

Now, you seem to fail to grasp the relevance of the first ECF to use the phrase that was adopted as part of the Nicene Creed, “the communion of saints”.

The relevance of this ECF is that 1) he was orthodox and trinitarian and in good standing with the Church in the late 300 century AD. 2) the canon was closed during his lifetime. 3) the teaching of the “communion of saints” as a literal understanding of Hebrews 12:1 was adopted into a Christian creed.

Where can it be found that Hebrews 12:1 is the literal understanding that means that the dead can communicate with you and you with them? What documement do i need to look at?

We can conclude, definitely, that the Catholic interpretation of the Communion of Saints, as taught today, can be traced to the closing of the canon. Therefore, this Sacred Tradition had as much consensus as the canon at the time it was adopted as part of the Nicene Creed.

What is the relevance of this to the closing of the canon?

As a Protestant scholar, you should be able to trace the denial of the literal communion of saints after death to the Enlightenment.

i’m not a scholar. Secondly why do i need to trace this back to the Enlightenment?

Suddenly someone determined that the practice of asking for the prayers of the saints was superstitious, ordinary, and heathen-like. That determination was made on the basis of cultural prejudices, not on the basis of continuity with historical Church teaching.

Not sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

 

[justasking4]

You’re right, scripture does not ask us to speak with the dead.

It DOES encourage that we speak with the LIVING in Christ

How do you know where they are at? How do you know with any certainty that they are LIVING in Christ?

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;4356880]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I deny the idea that a person is to communicate with a dead saint via prayer.
Lampo;
That’s your prerogative, but you did not answer my question. Furthermore, no one is REQUIRED to pray to the saints in Heaven.

If you or any catholic denies this teaching (praying to Mary and the saints) of your church what is the consquences for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
That is not in Scripture.

Lampo;
So what?

Its not apostolic. If its not apostolic because the apostles never taguht what should it be called then?

I’ll ask you again. Since you deny certain truths revealed by God because they are not explicitly in Scripture, do you deny the list of inspired books of the Bible?

There are 66 inspired-inerrant books that make up the Scriptures.

Another question you haven’t answered: Do you try to prove that the Catholic Church is not what she claims? Or that her teachings are false?

This is a big question. This thread is on teaching were dicussing.

 

[Lampo]

I dont believe the Catholic church is what it claims to be.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

So you believe the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church founded by Jesus Christ? If you don’t believe the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, then who founded it?

 

[Lampo]

If you or any catholic denies this teaching (praying to Mary and the saints) of your church what is the consquences for you?

Not sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

There are 66 inspired-inerrant books that make up the Scriptures.

True. The total number is 73.

This is a big question. This thread is on teaching were dicussing.

Okay, how about just the second question then? Do you try to prove that Catholic teachings are false and lead Catholics away from the Church?

 

[guanophore]

My question to that is, why hasn’t she been banned then? If this type of behavior is allowed on CAF, then I will accept it and move on and quit harping on her deceitful motives.

She has had multiple warnings and at least one suspension, and tries now to be very careful to stay under mod radar. The purpose of the question is just to open dialogue with those who may be vulnerable and able to be converted to sola scriptura. The main agenda is to get members of CAF to reject the Catholic Church because it is not a “bible based” church.

 

[Lampo]

She has had multiple warnings and at least one suspension, and tries now to be very careful to stay under mod radar. The purpose of the question is just to open dialogue with those who may be vulnerable and able to be converted to sola scriptura. The main agenda is to get members of CAF to reject the Catholic Church because it is not a “bible based” church.

Thanks for the info. I just hate lies and deceit. I wish people would just TELL THE TRUTH.

 

[Lampo]

Its not apostolic. If its not apostolic because the apostles never taguht what should it be called then?

Did the Apostles teach what books should be included in the New Testament?