1) If no one is admitting to it, did it ever occur that checking your assumptions might be called for? and 2) the poster clearly defined prayer in his context as a type of spiritual conversation, a two-way steet.
Not really, usually the contortions that a Catholic goes through to justify some of their beliefs through certain Biblical texts leaves me frustrated. I simply meant that it was refreshing to see someone clearly state what I knew all along. I have more respect for this individual than most who merely "beat around the bush."
the poster clearly defined prayer in his context as a type of spiritual conversation, a two-way steet.
When you invent your own definitions, you can slip any side issues in comfortably. By defining prayer as mere 'two-way conversation' without specifying that that person is actually God ... you can justify praying to anyone.
My point is that the poster gets no details of "Jesus wouldn't have commanded Lazarus", or "Jesus prayed to Lazarus" etc. from anything in the text; but rather has imposed his own preunderstanding and his own definition of prayer ONTO the text to make it mean what it does not. Its the classic example of Pauls warning not to exceed what is written.
Many Catholics on these forums claim that they don't actually pray TO dead saints ... but rather ask them to pray for them like you would ask a friend across town to pray for them. We non-Catholics have never seen the distinction in its practical aspects ... and its refreshing to see at least one honest Catholic admit it.