You mean other than the actual reference?
Perhaps the author decided to utilize a reference that no one would be familiar with.
- Status
Perhaps the author decided to utilize a reference that no one would be familiar with.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I’m to understand dead men tell no tales.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yeah… that’s the reasonable inference, if you want to ignore the culture of the day.
Then you do admit the race reference with spectators correct.Yeah… that’s the reasonable inference, if you want to ignore the culture of the day.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Not in the context you’re attempting to use it (i.e., that without a spectator, there’s no race; in that context, the inspired author is only telling men that they have a chance at heaven).
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m saying that souls do not have sensory organs, nor do they ratiocinate. We’re not told how the saints intercede for us, just that they do intercede.
That’s because you have ears to hear a request, feet to walk you from intercessor to grantor, and a mouth to voice the request. In a physical, human context, that’s how we understand ‘intercession’. In a non-physical context, though? It would necessarily be different. Yet, we’re told that they do intercede, so we believe it, and hopefully we don’t overly anthropomorphize when we imagine it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. I’ve demonstrated that they’re bearing witness (through their actions, as recorded in Scripture) and not witnessing our lives. If you choose to believe otherwise, have at it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well, I mean, if you have Scriptural evidence to prove your assertion about a point of Scriptural exegesis, please present it! Otherwise, just making the bald assertion that “races have witnesses” and “they’re witnesses” doesn’t really rise to the level of proving your point, does it?
I mean, I cited Scripture, in order to demonstrate how the ‘witnesses’ actually bear witness, and to what precisely they bear witness (i.e., to “faith”). So…
Last edited:
You really can’t leave this alone can you.Well, I mean, if you have Scriptural evidence to prove your assertion about a point of Scriptural exegesis, please present it! Otherwise, just making the bald assertion that “races have witnesses” and “they’re witnesses” doesn’t really rise to the level of proving your point, does it?
I mean, I cited Scripture, in order to demonstrate how the ‘witnesses’ actually bear witness, and to what precisely they bear witness (i.e., to “faith”). So…
You have provided nothing more then your own interpretation of the witnesses.
Since I have not much better, I choose not to argue. It would appear either interpretation acceptable.
I see a race and witnesses to it.
This fits with what I have been taught and also fits with other scriptures involving those that have passed seeing us and in some cases interacting.
You do not.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Apparently, I’m not alone in that.
Good on you. That’s not what the Scripture you cite is saying, but good on you.
In those cases, God has allowed a vision of a saint to appear to persons and interact with them. Do you see ‘interaction’ mentioned in the Scripture you have cited (Hebrews 12)? If so, then perhaps you might be so kind as to quote it to me? If not, then…
At this point, we’re just going back and forth, repeating our assertions. If you want me to keep quoting Hebrews to you, I could do that. If you want to keep telling me what your eisegesis is, then I’m sure you could keep doing that. Then again, maybe that wouldn’t be too productive. Peace!
It would be a rare thing to see interaction between one in the race and the spectators.
Usually it is just a one way, the crowd cheers and the racer runs.
I only mentioned the interaction as it indicates a present knowledge of our circumstances…our race.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
If I could step and give my thoughts on the subject of the thread. If, in my limited philosophical knowledge, understand currently, the duality of mind that Thomists hold certainly implies that the saints in heaven do not directly see or here and being without the brain do not have the rationality we do. But they do have their will, which is at this point always focused on the good. This all makes sense to me if I get it right. And as such, I understand the point that they only see and hear of us on earth to the extent that God imparts that knowledge to them.
On the other hand, the extent which the Church encourages us to seek the intercession of saints and the teachings on the Communion of Saints, implies that their intercessory prayers are more than just passively willing that any prayers to them we offer should be considered by God.
So I tend to think, and I believe this is both inline with Catholic teaching and more than being sentimental, that God does impart on them the knowledge of all of our prayers to them. What they know of us is what we tell them when we pray to them. God does hear all of our prayers and would certainly impart knowledge of our prayers to the saints to them. Just my speculation, but it certainly seems to make sense and be consistent with Catholic practices.
On the other hand, the extent which the Church encourages us to seek the intercession of saints and the teachings on the Communion of Saints, implies that their intercessory prayers are more than just passively willing that any prayers to them we offer should be considered by God.
So I tend to think, and I believe this is both inline with Catholic teaching and more than being sentimental, that God does impart on them the knowledge of all of our prayers to them. What they know of us is what we tell them when we pray to them. God does hear all of our prayers and would certainly impart knowledge of our prayers to the saints to them. Just my speculation, but it certainly seems to make sense and be consistent with Catholic practices.
- Status