Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Havoc
You also don't see the saints interceding here.

They are offering the prayers of others to God. That's intercession.

Who said "erroneous imagery".

You did. If heavenly beings offering prayers to God on behalf of earthly beings is wrong, it would not be used as imagery, literal or metaphorical.

398 posted on 03/19/2004 8:10:35 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies ]


To: Canticle_of_Deborah
They are offering the prayers of others to God. That's intercession.

You need to study what intercession is. Intercession is not gathering other people's prayers to God (not to themselves) Handing the prayers to god over to God and letting God deal with it. Again, you're looking at a symbolism that is representative of something; but, you're interpreting the symoblism as the message. As I said before, if we apply that rational, then the Whore of Babylon is nothing more than a rodeo rider. This is why Peter said that no PROPHECY is of private interpretation. It can' only be interpreted by the HOLY Spirit. Read it 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. What you're doing now is exactly why he said it. The prophetic symobolism is representative of something. It is not the message itself.

Intercession is something that we do - actually praying for others. It is called standing in the gap. It is praying to absurd extremes for the protection of another. If you have ever tried converting a Satanist, you'll either find out what intercession is for real or you will see one or both of you dead.

You did. If heavenly beings offering prayers to God on behalf of earthly beings is wrong, it would not be used as imagery, literal or metaphorical.

Oh really, what do you suppose the imagery was that came to the prophet who rebuked David? What do you think the imagery was that he used in explaining to David that what he did was wrong? A wrong. No matter how you cut it. It was a wrong designed in imagery to mask exactly what David had done so that David would Judge himself. Up to the time that Peter recieved his vision it was wrong to eat of unclean animals. God showed him a vision that was against the law; but because it had changed. It was still repugnant to Peter. Do you just make it up as you go? Cause those scriptures and more have been around for quite a bit longer than both of us and they contradict what you just said without any real effort.

414 posted on 03/19/2004 9:31:34 PM PST by Havoc ("The line must be drawn here. This far and no further!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson