Maybe...
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Lunar eclipse tonight. |
Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
I was confused so I retread my post. I meant to type him/her but apparently forgot. Thank you for pointing that out.
It remains however, that only prayer will help this poster, so I’ve added him/her to my list.
I don't see mind reading here, or maybe someone was trying to read my mind.
I believe it is because you read my mind in judging why i was uncomfortable, which was a logical deduction based upon a what seemed to be a superficial reason (simply because they are in glory), when in fact as i stated, yet which is far more substantial.
In addition to what i said in response, only almighty God is shown being able to hear virtual infinite amounts of prayer from those on earth, whereas communication btwn created being from each real required them to be in one realm or the other, even if in a vision, and was btwn an individual on earth, and in which the communication was apparently via words, not mind reading or corporate mental prayer.
The FR rules against mind reading here also do not apply to the Almighty, but no where do we see even angels in Heaven being able to hear mental prayers of those on earth, which is a unique attribute of Deity, yet which Catholics ascribe to men, thinking of men (mankind) above that which is written. (1Cor. 4:6)
That is indeed the fundamental question, and the premise behind RC argumentation for Rome effectively nukes the NT church.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
AHhhh...
Fear not; as there is always C&P to fall back on!
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun.
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
Oh; I think that maybe about $100,000 - tax free - might do wonders!
Pray away; FRiend.
Just don't do it to Mary.
But I LIKE all the attention!
And besides; I'll get to KEEP my 100K!!!!
Many Prot churches do, and one can, but the Lord did not teach us to pray the "Our Father" as being a formal prayer, and in fact He preceded it by stating, when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, but distinctly said,
After this manner ["houtō" cf. Mar_13:29, 1Co_7:7, 1Pe_3:5, Rev_11:5] therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Matthew 6:9)
And in the multitudinous prayers of Scripture you rarely see a prayer repeated, thus if your premise is that "Scriptural prayer" is only a set formal prayer, then you are in error. A Scriptural prayer is one that is after the manner of the disciples prayer that the Lord taught, yet if need be in essence it can be just "Lord save me," (Mt. 14:30) if behind it is reverence for God, commitment to His will, and dependance on Him, out of a poor and contrite spirit. It is not certain words that the Lord promised to hear, but,
...but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. (Isaiah 66:2)
The words that flow from this in faith in Christ in accordance with the the principles of the Lord' prayer is Scriptural prayer.
Did Jesus teach the disciples to pray to him ?
Not directly, but stated
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Matthew 11:28)
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37)
And unlike prayer to departed saints, the Holy Spirit affirms prayer being made to the Lord Jesus, as a unique attribute of diety:
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God , and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. (Acts 7:59)
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: (1 Corinthians 1:2)
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)
You mean like arguing in so many words that you cannot have assurance of truth by (even prayerful) reliance upon human reasoning, thus you need the Assuredly Infallible Magisterium (AIM), which we are assured is infallible because it has infallibly declared it is and will be perpetually infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders its declaration that it is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else it accordingly declares.
Realizing the circularity of this, and thus of arguing from Scripture to prove that you cannot assuredly know what Scripture is or means except by her, some will argue from Scripture as being a merely historical but reliable document that testifies that Rome is the one true and infallible church, which uniquely and assuredly defines what Scripture (history and tradition) is, and what it means.
And thus they appeal to human reasoning to examine a historically reliable document in order to convince one to forsake relying on human reasoning to examine evidence in order to assuredly determine Truth (and thus this historically reliable document as being Scripture and its true meaning), but to submit to Rome for this.
However, the fallacy here is that if one can recognize Rome as the one true church by examining a historically reliable document, then one can recognize that it teaches that both men and writings of God were recognized and established as being so even without an assuredly infallible magisterium. And that thus the church began in dissent from those stewards of Scripture, following a holy man in the desert who ate insects, and subsequently a Itinerant Preacher who established His truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church. And reproving the magisterium from Scripture, it being the the assured Word of God and supreme transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced .
This is simply a review for many, but the RC polemical fallacies are often repeated, such as the "Rome [the Catholic Church] gave you the Bible - she knows what it means" argument.
BTW, where did you get your list?
So you are arguing that the copyist were likewise Divinely inspired just as the original writers of Holy Writ were, and or that the writings of so-called church "fathers" were, and or that infallible teaching are?
None of these opinions of yours are the faith of the Church. They are just that, opinions of a Catholic reject and an Internet babbler.
True to your old form, which renders you an unofficial TRC ranter, seemingly longing for the days of a Catholic monarchy with all the means of the Inquisition to deal with those like myself, so that your fantasy of Rome is not disturbed, but those who expose its errors can be eradicated, as your once opined they should be.
See what i wrote above, and rather than asking imprecise questions, tell me what your argument is that they or some of them are not Scriptural.
Please tell the others this as well. They are also making it about others. I’m simply requesting consistency. That is usually why I don’t get involved in these threads, because the religion mods are biased.
I don’t know anybody, Catholic or Protestant, that prays to Mary. I will say a Hail Mary for you though.
Hail Mary full of grace The Lord is with you. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Since when does a self-professed Protestant pray to Mary?
The Onion: Man Just Using Virgin Mary To Get To Jesus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.