Poetic or not, the Psalms are prayers, and the ones I quoted address angels directly, something you claimed does not happen in Scripture. Pointing out that other created beings are also addressed does not change the fact that angels are addressed. As for why other created beings are addressed, recall that the creation reflects the nature of its Creator (Romans 1:20), so that when the Pharisees tell Jesus to silence his disciples, he responds, "If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out," a theme we also see in the Psalms (19:1 for example). Since stones are not sentient beings, obviously this is meant metaphorically. But angels are sentient beings; and as several Scriptures indicate (including the ones cited above as well as 1 Corinthians 11:10), they are present during the Christian worship service.
This addresses some of what you say later in post, but you cite 1 Timothy 2:5, which I also want to address. Protestants like to cite this out of context to supposedly refute the idea that saints can intercede for us, but if you back up to verse 1 of that chapter, what is the context? Paul is asking Christians--created beings--to make "requests, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving" for kings and authorities. This demonstrates that asking created beings for prayers was not seen by Paul as inconsistent with the idea of Christ as "one mediator". What he specifically means is that Christ is one mediator for "all men" (verse 6), not that we can't ask others to pray to this mediator for us.
1 Corinthians 4:6: if you'll look up commentators' discussion of the Greek for the phrase you quote as "above that which is written", you'll find that this is a rare phrase and scholars can only guess what it means. Citing it is weak support for any argument.
Your complaint about the latria/dulia/hyperdulia distinction being "semantics" ignores the fact that defining your terms is the basis of logical argument. You can only call Catholic Marian prayers "worship" by exporting your own definition of "worship" into Catholic teachings, which is fallacious, particularly since you are using a 21st-century definition rather than the one being used by the 1st-century NT documents and Augustine's 5th-century delineation of the latria/dulia/hyperdulia distinction. Nor is Augustine's distinction a merely semantic distinction, as he mentions it while discussing specific religious practices that were distinct and recognized as distinct by people of his time. Aquinas further developed this line of thought and addressed all the Scriptural objections Protestants typically make, centuries before Zwingli's followers came up with them.
Regarding Sola Scriptura: if you do not follow the many Protestants who see the principle as implying a contradiction between faith and reason--which includes Martin Luther (at times--he is not consistent on this in his writings), John Calvin, Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, George Lindbeck and today's Yale Barthians, etc.)--then good, I'm glad you don't, and we may be able to find something to agree on. There are some Protestants who do not take this position and who see faith and reason as complementary, such as those coming out of the Scottish Common Sense Realism philosophical school that inspired Alexander Campbell and the nondenominational movement. I agree faith and reason are complementary, and the Catholic Church teaches this. However, this is the problem I was getting at: I do not see how you can justify reason using Scripture alone, since the rules of logic are not laid out in Scipture. They were first developed by Aristotle and they have since been refined by symbolic logic, which is the basis of the computers we are talking over. Moreover, the rules of exegesis are not laid out in Scripture, either. They were initially developed by the Jewish rabbis and by Greek interpreters of Homer. Likewise, archaeology is not a Scriptural discipline, nor is ancient history. So yes, Scripture and reason are compatible, but I don't see how you can demonstrate this compatibility by appealing to Scripture alone. You have to import knowledge from secular fields. And this can be a serious problem in apologetics when you're debating atheists who want to know what the rational basis of faith is and what the justification of Sola Scriptura is. I have been debating atheists for decades, which is why this is an issue I'm concerned with. I do see ways to resolve it, but not by using Sola Scriptura.
Oral tradition: on this, I will refer you to Yves Congar's book The Meaning of Tradition, where he summarizes the documentation for this (developed more extensively in his other work), and also debates a Protestant scholar named Oscar Cullman who tried to support a position similar to the one you're advancing. Cullman eventually was forced to concede that, "We, on the Protestant side, are beginning to understand the immense wealth that is contained in the writing of the Church Fathers and are beginning to rid ourselves of the strange conception of the Church's history that claims that, with the exception of a few sects, there was a total eclipse of the Gospel between the second and sixteenth centuries."
1 Corinthians 3:10-15: The Church Fathers interpreted this passage the way they did for good reasons. One is the fact that Paul is alluding to other Scriptural passages on this same theme, including one some Protestants mistakenly claim wasn't canonical for early Christians, Sirach 2:5, as well as others that are in the Protestant canon such as Zechariah 13:9, Malachi 4:1, Matthew 3:11-12, etc., none of which is talking about people being a foundation. Interpreting the passage the way you suggest is to ignore these related passages, as well as the fact Paul addresses his comments to "each one", and each Christian is not an evangelist in the sense that Paul was ("He gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists. . .": Ephesians 4:11). As for the NAB, the new version is an awful liberal translation that the U.S. bishops developed in coordination with Protestant advisors and adopted for ecumenical purposes, it has silly gender-neutral language and so forth and often does not reflect Catholic teaching. There are other approved Catholic translations that are much better; I actually prefer conservative Protestant translations over the NAB.
Regarding Abraham's bosom: in ancient Christian catacomb inscriptions, there are prayers that are specifically asking for the dearly departed to be taken into Abraham's bosom to be with Lazarus, indicating a belief in a Purgatorial realm distinct from Abraham's bosom itself. The language used is similar to that used in Catholic prayers for the dead, demonstrating that these are an ancient practice and not a late innovation.
I have tried to cover your main points here; if I have overlooked anything in the midst of responding to a long post, it is not intentional. There are a couple other shorter posts from you I see I need to reply to and then I may need to catch up on the rest of the thread another day.
The issue was what you see in the texts, which means you somehow see these angels and elders being prayed to? No, you do not! And that you contextually see this as being a continuous service and the ability to hear all prayer from Heaven, which is unique to God? No, you do not either, or if you do then you are reading into it that which is not there.
There is nothing that suggests continuity here, but a number of future events are recorded in the context of the coming judgment upon the earth. And before judgment God brings forth testimony of the warrant for it, which includes the cry of those martyred souls under the altar in Rv. 6:9, and with odors representing prayer, akin to Leviticus 6:15, "burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the Lord." (Leviticus 6:15)
As for only God being able to hear all prayer from Heaven, with zero examples of any prayers to anyone else in Heaven, and statements that God hears prayers, then it is up to you to prove otherwise. Which, even if you could, would still not mean that are to be prayed to.
There is a point in the Catholic Mass (as well as the Masses of the Eastern churches) where prayers for the dead (i.e. memorial prayers) are offered and entrusted to the
Of what use is this? The errors of your church will not make such Scriptural.
Hebrews passage I quoted where angels are present with the spirits of righteous men made perfect), a practice that is documented in the earliest available records.
You are simply reading into the text what is not there, which is that of any example of them being prayed to or exhortation made to pray to them, which if any book was going to teach this it would be Hebrews. Instead, it states believers have access with boldness into the holy of holies in Heaven by the sinless shed blood of Christ, (Heb. 10:19) who is the only One set forth as man's heavenly intercessor, and uniquely able to help! (Heb. 4:15; 7:25) Stop reading into Scripture that which the Holy Spirit surely would have recorded if it was doctrine, but did not!
Poetic or not, the Psalms are prayers, and the ones I quoted address angels directly, something you claimed does not happen in Scripture. Pointing out that other created beings are also addressed does not change the fact that angels are addressed.
Are you serious? That is absurd! Telling the sun and moon, beasts, and all cattle etc. to praise the Lord is no more that of praying to them that it is telling angels to do so!
Since stones are not sentient beings, obviously this is meant metaphorically. But angels are sentient beings...;
Which helps you how? Psalms 148:7-10 also includes sentient beings Psalms 148:7-10 Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:...Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl: (Psalms 148:7-10) Just give it up as it makes you look even more desperate.
This addresses some of what you say later in post, but you cite 1 Timothy 2:5, which I also want to address. Protestants like to cite this out of context to supposedly refute the idea that saints can intercede for us, but if you back up to verse 1 of that chapter, what is the context? Paul is asking Christians--created beings--to make "requests, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving" for kings and authorities. This demonstrates that asking created beings for prayers was not seen by Paul as inconsistent with the idea of Christ as "one mediator".
Which is simply more Catholic sophistry, trying to use earthly communication as if it was the same as spiritual communication btwn Heaven and earth, despite approx. 200 prayers in Scripture and no one addressed to anyone in Heaven by God, except by pagans. But understand your desperation.
What he specifically means is that Christ is one mediator for "all men" (verse 6), not that we can't ask others to pray to this mediator for us.
You just don't get it. When Catholics are not arguing for the validity something unseen in Scripture on the basis that God could do it, then they are arguing that it is valid since there is no express injunction against it, but the point here was that Christ is the only heavenly intercessor named btwn God and man, that just as "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)
1 Corinthians 4:6: if you'll look up commentators' discussion of the Greek for the phrase you quote as "above that which is written", you'll find that this is a rare phrase and scholars can only guess what it means. Citing it is weak support for any argument.
Hardly. Contextually the meaning it clear. Men were thinking of men too highly, thus forming sects after men, and thus being puffed up against each others, and this Paul warns them not to think of men above that which is written, "that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written." (DRB) "Huper" is a common word which means "over," above," and the word for "which" is exceedingly common and means that when referring to something, while "graphō" means to grave, to write, and refers to a standard, and the only supreme written standard is Scripture.
Your complaint about the latria/dulia/hyperdulia distinction being "semantics" ignores the fact that defining your terms is the basis of logical argument. You can only call Catholic Marian prayers "worship" by exporting your own definition of "worship" into Catholic teachings, which is fallacious, particularly since you are using a 21st-century definition rather than the one being used by the 1st-century NT documents and Augustine's 5th-century delineation of the latria/dulia/hyperdulia distinction.
No, i am referring to how worship is described, as it is manifest as an activity and goes along attributions, so that giving such obeisance and praise to created beings that is only given to God in both idolatry and blasphemy, to the two being related. Thus my statement that one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them.
Regarding Sola Scriptura: if you do not follow the many Protestants who see the principle as implying a contradiction between faith and reason-
Nothing more needs to be said here other than the fact that the supreme definitive source for what the NT church believed is the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth, Scripture, specifically Acts onward which reveals how they understood the rest of Scripture. In which the Catholic distinctives are unseen and contrary to it.
1 Corinthians 3:10-15: The Church Fathers interpreted this passage the way they did for good reasons. One is the fact that Paul is alluding to other Scriptural passages on this same theme, including one some Protestants mistakenly claim wasn't canonical for early Christians,
Look. You can invoke every so-called "church father" you want and it will not change the fact that only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life is that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
As for the NAB, the new version is an awful liberal translation that the U.S. bishops
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:
Regarding Abraham's bosom: in ancient Christian catacomb inscriptions, there are prayers that are specifically asking for the dearly departed to be taken into Abraham's bosom to be with Lazarus, indicating a belief in a Purgatorial realm distinct from Abraham's bosom itself. The language used is similar to that used in Catholic prayers for the dead, demonstrating that these are an ancient practice and not a late innovation.
A late Jewish innovation, and in any case the record of what some people did simply does not mean it Scripture. If prayer to created beings - a most common basic practice that was are supposed to believe in - was Biblical then you would have to run to such traditions or engage in extrapolating support of you texts which simply do not teach it. It remains that the Holy Spirit was neither negligent nor forgetful in providing approx. 200 prayers to Heaven in Scripture but none to anyone else but the Lord, and instructing Him to be addressed, who He himself cries to from within the believe ("Abba, Father," not "Mamma, Mother") and only setting forth Christ as the incessant heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, whom believers call upon.
The End.