Protestants Whats wrong with this prayer? = Rosary

[MonicaC]

bene7:

Context is everything, Milliardo. In context Elizabeth was speaking to a pregnant Mary. And if she was the “mother” of her Lord, then she is referring to the child within her. I doubt Elizabeth called her the “mother” of her Lord prior to Mary conceiving.

Hello Bene,

I am very confused by what you said here. I always thought that once a woman becomes pregnant with a child she than is the mother of that child. Now I really don’t think think that St Elizabeth did call Mary mother of her Lord prior to Mary conceiving. Because she wan’t. Now In my own experience I am the “mother” of Michael, I can;t see how anyone could rebut this since I did give birth to him. Now my husband is also named Michael, So of course no one would have ever called me the “mother” of Michael prior to conceiving my little Michael would they have? No.

So I guess what I am saying is that once you concieve someone you are than their mother for all time.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Monica

 

[Zooey]

You know, I think I can remember a time when I had never heard the name of Nestorius…
But now, he seems to, well, http://bestsmileys.com/ghost/1.gif…

As one of my Mother’s Latin students used to say,

http://bestsmileys.com/wink/1.gif"Boy, temper sure does fugit, doesn’t it???"…http://bestsmileys.com/wink/1.gif

 

[Alfie]

Milliardo:

All the other persons? Elijah was taken up to heaven bodily; he did not die. So the question again, if a prophet such as Elijah can be taken up to heaven, then why not the mother of our Lord herself?

You mean that Elizabeth was so wrong in exclaiming that Mary is the mother of our Lord?

Paul’s death was not mentioned as well–is it not important? Peter’s death was not mentioned. John the Apostle’s death was not mentioned. In fact, all of the Apostles’ deaths were never mentioned. They were not important then?

The reason that Paul, John, Peter and the other Apostles deaths were not mentioned in the New Testament is because they were not dead. They died after the New Testament was written. But their names are all mentioned numerous times after the cruxcification of Jesus, especially Paul. However Mary is not mentioned again after the cruxification.

 

[Milliardo]

Alfie:

The reason that Paul, John, Peter and the other Apostles deaths were not mentioned in the New Testament is because they were not dead. They died after the New Testament was written.

Acts left off with Paul awaiting sentencing. Several Bible scholars agree that at that point the Johannine Gospel was not yet written; Revelation in fact was not written by the time Acts was finished, so this alone would already disprove your case.

But their names are all mentioned numerous times after the cruxcification of Jesus, especially Paul. However Mary is not mentioned again after the cruxification.

Does that necessarily matter? Most of the Apostles were never mentioned by name after the Cruxifiction, yet no doubt as well that they were no less important.

 

[bene7]

WorBlux:

Omniscience would not be neccessary for the saint to hear a prayer. Prayers to the saints or mary are adressed as such. Much like a letter to a foreign cuntry would be adresses.

Another facet of catholic faith is the communion of saints. It is the belief that the faithful that have died before us are still with us in spirit.

Of course it would demand the attribute of omniscience. It doesn’t matter if a prayer is addressed to a specific person (even by name). For that person to know, remotely, what you’re praying, either silently or audibly, he/she would have to be all knowing. No created being (creature), either on earth or in Heaven, possesses this attribute. It is a Divine attribute.

Communion between “saints” in Heaven and “saints” on earth through the medium of prayer is a fallacy. You and I can’t even talk to each here on earth, remotely, except through some kind of device: telephone, e-mail, walkie-talkie, written letter, etc.

But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, WorBlux. I just said a “prayer” to you. I requested something of you. Please tell me in your next post what that request is. If you can tell me, then I’ll believe saints in a totally different dimension can hear my prayers to them as well , even without the attribute of omniscience, as you assert.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Eireann]

bene7:

Of course it would demand the attribute of omniscience. It doesn’t matter if a prayer is addressed to a specific person (even by name). For that person to know, remotely, what you’re praying, either silently or audibly, he/she would have to be all knowing. No created being (creature), either on earth or in Heaven, possesses this attribute. It is a Divine attribute.

We pray in spirit, we believe our prayer’s rise to the throne of Heaven, it’s spiritual not physcial.
When you pray how do your prayer’s reach Heaven ?
Another thing is, why did God send the Angel Gabriel to Mary, why didn’t God come directly to Mary like to Moses in the burning bush ?
It is quite evident that Angels are messengers of God, Lucifer decided he would not serve anymore, so he was cast into hell.
Rapheal was sent to earth to heal Tobias, again why didn’t God come directly Himself ?

Communion between “saints” in Heaven and “saints” on earth through the medium of prayer is a fallacy. You and I can’t even talk to each here on earth, remotely, except through some kind of device: telephone, e-mail, walkie-talkie, written letter, etc.

That’s your assumption, yet you believe in a God you can’t see, your talking about physical objects to talk to eachother, prayer is spiritual, even if we couldn’t speak we can pray with our hearts.
Why do you pray bene7 ? because you don’t even know if God heard it apart from faith.

 

[deb1]

bene7:

But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, WorBlux. I just said a “prayer” to you. I requested something of you. Please tell me in your next post what that request is. If you can tell me, then I’ll believe saints in a totally different dimension can hear my prayers to them as well , even without the attribute of omniscience, as you assert.

Blessings,
Bene

Isn’t this a bit like the atheist who declares that if there is a God he will strike him dead in so many minutes? First, we are not suppose to test God, which is what you are doing. Second, WorBLux is not a saint in heaven.

 

[seabird3579]

bene7:

Of course it would demand the attribute of omniscience. It doesn’t matter if a prayer is addressed to a specific person (even by name). For that person to know, remotely, what you’re praying, either silently or audibly, he/she would have to be all knowing.

Or could it be possible, could it just be possible, that God, the Holy Spirit, determines who will hear and what they will hear in the afterlife?

Possible do you think?

Afterall, how do we “feel” inspired in the first place to pray for someone?

Are we "all knowing (omnipotent)?

Or, as Scripture suggests, the *Spirit inspires us * to do good and pray for others.

 

[bene7]

deb1:

Isn’t this a bit like the atheist who declares that if there is a God he will strike him dead in so many minutes?

Not at all

First, we are not suppose to test God, which is what you are doing.

The context isn’t even about God, it’s about humans and their abilities, or lack of.

Second, WorBLux is not a saint in heaven.

What would geographical location have to do with it? Do people in Germany have innate powers than, say, those in Australia? Or are you saying when souls enter Heaven they become more than human?

AGAIN…I see absolutely no teaching or example in Scripture that Mary, or any so-called saint in Heaven, is to be prayed TO. In fact, I don’t see even one example in Scripture where an Apostle requests Mary’s intercession on his behalf while she was still on earth, either before or after Christ’s resurrection. Now if not one Apostle requested intercession of her while she was still in their presence on earth, how is it that we should request it of her now that she’s in Heaven? On what divine instruction are we to do this?

You’re calling me “a bit like an atheist” because I refuse to believe something that has no divine revelation to back it up. Milliardo said God “overshadows” the saints and that gives them the power to hear prayers of saints on earth. This knowledge would have to be revealed to us by either God Himself or a messenger from God since it’s not part of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. So, can you tell me the name of the person who actually got this divine revelation?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

seabird3579:

Or could it be possible, could it just be possible, that God, the Holy Spirit, determines who will hear and what they will hear in the afterlife?

Possible do you think?

I’m not debating subjective “possibilities.” To debate from that point of view, then it’s just as “possible” that He doesn’t.

Afterall, how do we “feel” inspired in the first place to pray for someone?

To feel inspired to pray FOR someone is not at all the same as feeling inspired to pray TO someone - other than God Himself.

Are we "all knowing (omnipotent)?

No. But to have the ability to know the silent and audible prayers of millions of people all over the world you’d have to be.

Omniscient is “all knowing.” Omnipotent is “all powerfull.”

Or, as Scripture suggests, the *Spirit inspires us * to do good and pray for others.

Yes, and that’s the KEY WORD: “FOR.” But Scripture nowhere even “suggests” we pray TO others, except God Himself who is omniscient.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[deb1]

bene7:

You’re calling me “a bit like an atheist” because I refuse to believe something that has no divine revelation to back it up. Milliardo said God “overshadows” the saints and that gives them the power to hear prayers of saints on earth. This knowledge would have to be revealed to us by either God Himself or a messenger from God since it’s not part of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. So, can you tell me the name of the person who actually got this divine revelation?

Blessings,
Bene

Whoa! You have made a big jump from what I said. I did not say that you were a bit like an atheist. I noticed the similarity of your statement toward one that atheiss often make. That has no bearing on you personally.

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

No Mickey, you simply don’t comprehand the incarnation. That the eternal Son assumed true humanity is not Nestorian. You fail to understand both the incarnation and the Nestorian heresy. Don’t accuse people of what you don’t understand.

Bene

No Bene. It is you who do not comprehend. When you deny the title of Theotokos, you are thoroughly nestorian. No accusations here–only observations.

 

[Milliardo]

bene7:

Of course it would demand the attribute of omniscience. It doesn’t matter if a prayer is addressed to a specific person (even by name). For that person to know, remotely, what you’re praying, either silently or audibly, he/she would have to be all knowing. No created being (creature), either on earth or in Heaven, possesses this attribute. It is a Divine attribute.

Bene, we’ve talked about this before. The saints’ ability to do so isn’t on their own, but it’s because God works through them. Now, unless you don’t agree that someone who prays over does exactly the same thing, that God is working through that person, then you would have to be consistent about this one, or else you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing.

Communion between “saints” in Heaven and “saints” on earth through the medium of prayer is a fallacy. You and I can’t even talk to each here on earth, remotely, except through some kind of device: telephone, e-mail, walkie-talkie, written letter, etc

Now this is funny. Do the saints in heaven need some kind of device or machine in order to hear us? But seriously, the device is laready there–it’s called prayer. Think of prayer as akin to a letter, which is also a device. A letter addressed to the President would naturally be different from one written to your friend. The same it is with prayer: Catholics addressing prayers to the saints do not address it the same way as they do so with God.

I just said a “prayer” to you. I requested something of you. Please tell me in your next post what that request is.

It seems you don’t even know how prayers to saints work…I can tell even now that it doesn’t work that way.

 

[Neverland]

To Milliardo,

You said:
First, Jesus never introduced it as a parable. Scott Hahn also made a good observation about how Jesus never named the people in His parables; Jesus named a man here, and strangely enough it is the same name as His friend, and even stranger is that He raised this friend up from the dead. So more likely than not, Jesus is stating something that actually happened. But whether it is a parable or not is irrelevant; the fact that Jesus stated it that way still has to be taken into account.

I have to correct you a bit, that we never read any of WRITTEN PARABLES of Jesus with person’s name. And you said it’s more likely to be true? Why is that? Because no other parables with names? Sounds a very weird conclusion. I need more than that to conclude it’s not a parable.

 

[deb1]

Neverland:

To Milliardo,

You said:
First, Jesus never introduced it as a parable. Scott Hahn also made a good observation about how Jesus never named the people in His parables; Jesus named a man here, and strangely enough it is the same name as His friend, and even stranger is that He raised this friend up from the dead. So more likely than not, Jesus is stating something that actually happened. But whether it is a parable or not is irrelevant; the fact that Jesus stated it that way still has to be taken into account.

I have to correct you a bit, that we never read any of WRITTEN PARABLES of Jesus with person’s name. And you said it’s more likely to be true? Why is that? Because no other parables with names? Sounds a very weird conclusion. I need more than that to conclude it’s not a parable.

I wish that I could agree that it was the same Lazaraus that was risen from the dead but Jesus’ friend did not appear to be as poverty stricken as the man in the parable was. Remember Jesus’ friend was the brother of both Mary and Martha who had a home. It sounds to me as though the man in the story was homeless.

 

[bene7]

Milliardo:

Bene, we’ve talked about this before. The saints’ ability to do so isn’t on their own, but it’s because God works through them.

Milliardo, you’re so indoctrinated with this teaching that everything I say flies right over your head. Yes, we’ve talked about this before and I’ve ask you before: “what’s your divine source for this information???”

Now this is funny. Do the saints in heaven need some kind of device or machine in order to hear us?

Yes, unless they become Gods and possess the power of omniscience.

But seriously, the device is laready there–it’s called prayer.

So then, Milliardo, did you just hear the prayer I said to you? Please give me a detailed response. I covered all this in a previous post with someone else. Please go back and read it.

Your problem still remains the same. You simple assert things without any proof. You believe it only because that’s what your church tells you. But true Christianity is based on Divine revelation, not men’s fertile imagination. That’s why the Scriptures are so important. They curb the imaginations of men.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

deb1:

I wish that I could agree that it was the same Lazaraus that was risen from the dead but Jesus’ friend did not appear to be as poverty stricken as the man in the parable was. Remember Jesus’ friend was the brother of both Mary and Martha who had a home. It sounds to me as though the man in the story was homeless.

You’re absolutely right. Lazarus was a popular name in those days.

Blessins,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Mickey:

No Bene. It is you who do not comprehend. When you deny the title of Theotokos, you are thoroughly nestorian. No accusations here–only observations.

Sorry, my friend, but one can reject the title for many other reasons than that of Nestorius. A person like you would have been dangerous in the Middle Ages, quick to yell “heretic” and quick to gather faggots for my burning.

Bene

 

[TobyLue]

YADA said:
arieh0310, Congratulations on your journey of faith……You have probably realized that the Catholic faith is well founded in scripture.I don’t want to open another can of worms and this should probably belong on another thread but here goes anyway.

Uhh, correct me if I’m wrong but shouldn’t it be. “Scripture is well founded on the Catholic Faith”? Remember, there were all sorts of gospels and books floating around. If any book did not comply with what was taught by the Church, it was not included in the Canon. Why weren’t the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Phillip, etc. or the Protevangelium of James, or the acts of Pilate included in the canon? Simply because those books were not well founded in the Church.

 

[Neverland]

You’re absolutely right. Lazarus was a popular name in those days.​

That’s why I concluce it was a parable, one of Jesus’ teaching, until Milliardo said otherwise.