Ever heard the expression “grow a brain” ?
Any interpretations Jesus gives are IN Scripture….read for yourself!…pay attention to who the SPEAKER is!
Any understanding of Scripture “ACCORDING to God”….is given a man FROM God!
A heretical teaching dismantled with the help of Paul the Evangelist.
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ever heard the expression “grow a brain” ?
Any interpretations Jesus gives are IN Scripture….read for yourself!…pay attention to who the SPEAKER is!
Any understanding of Scripture “ACCORDING to God”….is given a man FROM God!
Gods TRUTH…
Bowing down unto a set up graven image is one thing.
Worship is another thing.
Lev 26
[1] Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.
Pss 95
[6] O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker.
Worship is reserved for God.
Bowing to graven images is said to not do.
Doesn’t matter IF you are NOT Worshiping Mary, when you bow down before an image that is suppose to represent Mary…
you are still bowing before a graven image.
What Catholics HAVE said…
They are not worshiping Mary…
Doesn’t matter…they are bowing to an image, they set up, of their own accord.
What Catholics HAVE said….
They are PRAYING TO Mary…
Scripture teaches to PRAY TO God Only.
Scripture teaches to NOT solicit DEAD People.
Catholic doctrine teaches, Mary did not submit unto her husband, Mary did not die, Mary is Gods mother, Mary sits in heaven with the Title Queen.
The statues, the bowing, the praying to, the pretense Mary never died…
You are submitting yourself to the Created, rather than the Creator.
Is ALL against Gods Word….and every individual persons Choice to do or not.
Yes, Mary would be horrified by the corruption men have (lie upon lie) done to her memory….
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,962
- 3,410
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
AGAIN - In post #495 – I asked YOU: “Who interprets the Scriptures for YOU?”
YOU stated, “JESUS.”
I have stated ALL along that if Jesus is personally interpreting the Scriptures for each individual – WHY are there so many perpetually-splintering factions?
WHERE doe the Bible teach this fallacy??
Calling me a “gas lighter” is NOT an answer . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,962
- 3,410
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
WRONG.
YOU claimed that Jesus interprets the Scriptures FOR you.
I told YOU that this fallacy exists nowhere in the Bible.
This is not an “opinion” – it’s a FACT.
Already answered you. Even gave you an example.
Anything Jesus interprets, is revealed in scripture. Yep Him speaking. Yep Him revealing the interpretation.
Not my job to read for you.
I have no clue what tens of thousand churches you are speaking of.
Since you are a master at speaking for others, YOU TELL ME, which of the tens of thousands Churches I have a membership….
and Then I will tell you why THAT church splintered off.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,962
- 3,410
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Do you EVER debate the issues ay hand – or are you only capable of the usual manure-slinging at Catholics?
Since you’re buddy, @Taken can’t seem to give any Biblical proof for this fallacy that it is Jesus who personally teaches every individual how to interpret the Scriptures – perhaps YOU can show me.
So, try pulling your foot out of your mouth long enough to give me an answer.,
Your usual cowardice is boring . . .
Good grief, Are you really that ignorant that you do NOT know when Jesus interprets Scripture….even after being given an example?
Don’t you EVER read Scripture and LEARN from JESUS?
Does your Bible sit idle on shelf collecting dust when Jesus revealed mysteries not before known?
Some are such pathetic small men.
LOL…typical…
Pick up a Bible, read for yourself.
And then IGNORE Jesus is Speaking TO YOU….and EVERY man….because…He ONLY (according to you) Is speaking to ME….
How shallow and pathetic.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,446
- 1,702
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,446
- 1,702
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
@amigo de christo
Hi “friend”….
Do you find it beyond comical to pathetic how long an individual insists to reveal their ignorance?
Hi “friend”….
Do you find it beyond comical to pathetic how long an individual insists to reveal their ignorance?
Excellent Scripture…but is of no avail if you do not heed it.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
oh its far beyond comical , for the tears have long flowed for such men who utter the ignorance of lost men@amigo de christo
Hi “friend”….
Do you find it beyond comical to pathetic how long an individual insists to reveal their ignorance?
as though it be the absolute GOD inspired truth . Many folks are slaves to men and the institutions of these blind men .
Who blindly say follow us for WE SEE and our institution is the holy path to GOD . When in truth
their institutions do not follow nor adhere , do not keep but rather twist , the teachings of CHRIST ,
though they claim Him as their head . Them popes decieved the people . them watchtowers decieved the people
the bringemyoung mormon jospeh smith institution decieved the people .
As do many others . would you like to know what it is they all have in common .
Its not doctrine , for each of these did not agree to the others doctrine .
SO what is the big mystery they all have in common .
What does the RCC , the jw , the mormon and others have in common .
One statement . TOUCH NOT OUR ANNOINTED , WE HOLD THE KEYS OF HEAVEN
OUR WAY and no man can understand the bible nor come to the truth lest ye sit under our scholars our men .
SEE THE PROBLEM YET . AND this too they all have in common . ALL their so called institutions TEACH BIG TIME
contrary to the TRUTH .
YOU see , i have zero problem with leaders , elders , bishops leading the people . But when they teach contrary
when they be wolves in wool , PHEW WEE i aint sitting under their STINK .
MEN aint nor ever have been infallible . BUT GOD IS
BUT CHRIST IS
BUT HIS WORDS ARE ............
YEAH , IT SURE BE BIBLE TIME . And believe me when i do say , THAT GOD , HIS SPIRIT
can and surely will give the understanding of WHAT HE INSPIRED , aka THE BIBLE
to those who are HIS and desire HIM . FOR HE HIMSELF has put the LOVE FOR HIM , FOR TRUTH upon their hearts .
This lamb wont be sitting under the stink doctrines of men and their institutions who do naught
but teach contrary , for one reason . Get ready . THIS IS WHY men do as men do .
FOR RECOGNITION , for the glory unto themselves , for power and control , for they desire to be SEEN
as the great thing . Ye shall also know them by what they desire to be called .
MOST HOLY FATHER , MOST HOLY REVERAND and ye shall know them by their ENORMOUS well decked out clothing
they wear for to be SEEN OF MEN . MANS HEART IS VERY WICKED FROM HIS YOUTH UP
and man will never grow weary of RECOGNITION . for power and for control and to have the worship of men .
But lambs WONT DONT SHANT sit under them men of belial . Lambs dont desire to be SEEN of men
and called wonderful great titles . THEY SIMPLY SIT UNDER CHRIST and GIVE GOD the glorious titles .
OH YE SHALL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS ALL RIGHT .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Or if they heed it according to how their glory of men seeking leaders twisted it .
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,446
- 1,702
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Another bad encounter from a member of the encounter team
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
LET THE CHOIR SING ..............................
never sit under a harlot for all who do so will catch disease .
The harlot rests not and has many children who do her will . Her cup is full of fornication
and her drink shall rot the soul of all who partake of her .
You all may return to the original thread now . She has many who do her work . the lambs heed her not nor her co workers .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Another wonderful reminder . you all know what your doing .
You trying to just have folks cease with the warnings so as we can all come together for unity under HER .
THIS LAMB DONT AND WONT SIP of that cup . but i will warn against it . Your strategies do work on many
and soon all religoins with all the faiths within christedom will sit at that table . THIS LAMB WONT
Churches should never have bought into the unity , finding common ground , correct not judge not junk .
THE HARLOT KNEW what she was doing , she knows how to get leaven into churches . WELL you just pander on emotions
speak about unity and love non stop and keep on transforming them from within .
ONLY this lamb nor any other lamb gonna buy it . You all may continue with the thread now .
I seen where this so called all inclusive unity love stuff is leading and who its leading all to be as one with .
I wont be sitting at that table at all .
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
You keep repeating the same LIES over and over again.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
“for I am in anguish in this flame”, please remind me of where you think this flame is located.
Limbo of the Fathers, or Hades, as it says in Luke 16:23.
So not in this realm? The asking and the response do not happen in Earth-as-realm? If that is the case then I don’t see it as a basis for prayer to saints; [it] appears tenuous and overly derived.
The story still works in terms of someone praying or making an intercessory request of someone other than God: right from the lips of Jesus.
Again, I’m not seeking to invalidate your contour but it does seem that the main direction of prayer, as instructed by Jesus, is directly to the Father with the help of the Spirit.
The problem with your “take” is that it clearly goes through Abraham:
16:24 (RSV): “And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ ”
Abraham says no (16:25-26), just as God will say no to a prayer not according to His will. He asks him again, begging (16:27-28).
Abraham refuses again, saying (16:29): “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'” He asks a third time (16:30), and Abraham refuses again, reiterating the reason why (16:31).
How this does not support the principle of saints interceding and being able to intercede is a mystery to me. If we were not supposed to ask saints to pray for us, I think this story would be almost the very last way to make that supposed point.
Abraham would simply have said, “you shouldn’t be asking me for anything; ask God!” In the same way, analogously, angels refuse worship when it is offered, because only God can be worshiped:
St. Peter did the same thing:
So did St Paul and Barnabas:
If the true theology is that Abraham cannot be asked an intercessory request, then Abraham would have noted this and refused to even hear it. But instead he heard the request and said no.
Prayer to the saints is never “required” but it is always permitted as a possibility and avenue of access to God. James 5:16 states: “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.” The saints are perfected in righteousness. That’s why we ask for their intercession, because it carries much more power than our own. Taken runs from James 5:16, or interprets it according to rebellious paradyms.
Note that the rich man’s attempt to intercede on behalf of his brothers was rejected.
*
I already answered that in my post:
All this shows is that an intercessory prayer can be rejected by God (or, here, Abraham), if it isn’t according to God’s will. It doesn’t disprove the manifest ability to make an intercession of father Abraham. God’s answer to prayer can always be “no”, and this doesn’t “prove” that we ought not pray to God, because He turns down requests outside of His will. We know that from these scriptural passages:
Famous Presbyterian commentator Matthew Henry makes these same logical mistakes:
Note how he casually assumes that the rich man prayed to Abraham. Exactly! He did!
Secondly, it’s not “all [we] can find” in the first place; there are plenty of proofs of various sorts for the intercession of saints, as I and many others have written about. See, for example, an excellent biblical exposition, “Praying to the Saints,” by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin.
*
Thirdly, the point is not that it is merely “the mistake of a damned sinner.” Rather, it is a supposed “mistake” which Abraham did not correct, and which (ultimately) Jesus Himself did not correct within the story. Thus, according to this flawed and fallacious logic, Jesus sanctioned a very serious theological error (which is not possible!).
*
Fourthly, the fact that the intercessory requests were denied in this instance is no proof that they could not be made to Abraham, per the passages above about unanswered prayer and the necessity to ask according to God’s will in order to receive a positive answer.
continued...
*
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Benson Commentary admits that prayer took place here, too, but commits the same two logical fallacies already refuted above, with the same blind spots as to the relevant issues:
Every instance you have cited lacks a command or instruction to pray to anyone except Jesus. This is an argument based on conjecture at best.
*
Why don’t you answer my specific arguments, then (if they are so bad), instead of repeating mere Protestant points? Like Taken does?
My argument doesn’t depend on a command. Jesus gave this example in His story, and it cannot contain a falsehood or bad theology. There is not the slightest hint of condemnation or opposition to the notion of praying to Abraham.
Jesus said (summary): “The rich man prayed to Abraham, asking him to fulfill his petitionary requests.”Taken says (summary): “men cannot pray to Abraham or anyone else but God.”
Conclusion: I pick the stated view of Jesus, God the Son, over the contrary opinion of Taken.
There’s no command in the Bible that says all true Christian doctrines have to be presented explicitly in the Bible, either, and that is Taken's false premise that underlies his present argument and is also fairly fundamental to the entire outlook of sola Scriptura, and assumed minus any biblical indication of such a thing.You can keep repeating unproven Protestant platitudes and traditions of men; I’ll keep repeating biblical arguments, thank you.
Well it was an interesting discussion while it lasted … but if you write me off as someone who would be limited to “unproven Protestant platitudes and traditions of men” you clearly do not know me. Building a doctrine of intercession from an aggadic text is contrary to the principles Rabbinic and Christian hermeneutics – I’ll leave it at that.
...but it is true that Taken continues to refuse to respond to my actual arguments. He simply repeats his own.
Your assumption rests on the request being valid and that Abraham is potentially able but not capable.
It’s a pretty solid assumption, by analogy, since, as I showed, it is blasphemous to worship anyone but God; therefore, Paul and Peter and angels all specifically refuse worship and rebuke such a notion. Thus, if a prayer to Abraham was similarly blasphemous, in the story given by the omniscient Jesus, he certainly would have rebuked the prayer request and pointed the rich man to God. But he doesn’t. He simply says that the request (not the very notion of prayer itself!) is denied.
It is just as valid to read Abraham’s reply as an ‘even if I was able it wouldn’t be possible.’
That doesn’t follow. If the prayer were improper this certainly would have been pointed out, lest Jesus lead astray His followers into seriously false and dangerous doctrine (according to how Protestants view it).
“Therefore, it is assumed in the story that Abraham had the ability and authority to do so on his own” is a sequitur, but not the only sequitur available.
Not the only, but by far the best and most plausible.
There is not the slightest hint of condemnation or opposition to the notion of praying to Abraham.
Probably because it is not the main teaching point that Jesus wishes to emphasise. Does this mean, by your same method, that Jesus thinks a camel can go through the eye of a needle? …. there is no negation of this possibility.
That’s a silly example because it is clearly Hebrew exaggeration and hyperbole (which He often used), and that is not the case at all here. It is a literal re-telling of a story that appears to have actually happened. But even if it didn’t (if it is a parable), Jesus could never mislead with false theology. God is never mentioned in the story. The prayer goes to Abraham. (that Taken flatly denies) I would say that it is understood that the power to grant it goes back to God, based on teaching elsewhere. Hebrew culture was based on many shared common premises that were understood.
Fine, Jesus’ original audience (John’s ‘Jewish context’) would have thought the original camel proposition quite absurd.
No; anyone who knew anything at all about genre and Hebrew idiom and culture would understand it as hyperbole. But educated people sometimes do misunderstand anyway (like Nicodemus and the “born again” issue). Note that Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for that, implying that he should have known that he was speaking spiritually and not literally.
Why is it not fair to take a contour on the ‘Rich man’ that he too was attempting something desperate but unreal?
Because Jesus the teller of the story didn’t state that and correct it.
I think there is a valid distinction between the realms of the temporal and the eternal. If not then universalism beckons where repentance and petition post-mortem would be the norm.
Of course there is. But it remains the case that someone other than God is prayed to here, and that is anathema to @Taken. Secondly, this is not yet the eternal realm, but Hades / Sheol, which is not the final state, but an intermediate one.
Jesus did say that the rich man prayed to Abraham, asking him to fulfill his petitionary requests
Thank you!
but where did he say this was an authoritative norm?
He doesn’t have to. The presence of the practice in the story, without being rebuked, is proof that it is legitimate.
What he did say about prayer was , “Our Father ….”
That was given as a quintessential example of prayer. It doesn’t follow that any other form is invalid, so it proves nothing as to our dispute.
www.patheos.com
There is not the slightest hint of condemnation or opposition to the notion of praying to Abraham.
Every instance you have cited lacks a command or instruction to pray to anyone except Jesus. This is an argument based on conjecture at best.
*
Why don’t you answer my specific arguments, then (if they are so bad), instead of repeating mere Protestant points? Like Taken does?
My argument doesn’t depend on a command. Jesus gave this example in His story, and it cannot contain a falsehood or bad theology. There is not the slightest hint of condemnation or opposition to the notion of praying to Abraham.
Jesus said (summary): “The rich man prayed to Abraham, asking him to fulfill his petitionary requests.”Taken says (summary): “men cannot pray to Abraham or anyone else but God.”
Conclusion: I pick the stated view of Jesus, God the Son, over the contrary opinion of Taken.
There’s no command in the Bible that says all true Christian doctrines have to be presented explicitly in the Bible, either, and that is Taken's false premise that underlies his present argument and is also fairly fundamental to the entire outlook of sola Scriptura, and assumed minus any biblical indication of such a thing.You can keep repeating unproven Protestant platitudes and traditions of men; I’ll keep repeating biblical arguments, thank you.
Well it was an interesting discussion while it lasted … but if you write me off as someone who would be limited to “unproven Protestant platitudes and traditions of men” you clearly do not know me. Building a doctrine of intercession from an aggadic text is contrary to the principles Rabbinic and Christian hermeneutics – I’ll leave it at that.
...but it is true that Taken continues to refuse to respond to my actual arguments. He simply repeats his own.
Your assumption rests on the request being valid and that Abraham is potentially able but not capable.
It’s a pretty solid assumption, by analogy, since, as I showed, it is blasphemous to worship anyone but God; therefore, Paul and Peter and angels all specifically refuse worship and rebuke such a notion. Thus, if a prayer to Abraham was similarly blasphemous, in the story given by the omniscient Jesus, he certainly would have rebuked the prayer request and pointed the rich man to God. But he doesn’t. He simply says that the request (not the very notion of prayer itself!) is denied.
It is just as valid to read Abraham’s reply as an ‘even if I was able it wouldn’t be possible.’
That doesn’t follow. If the prayer were improper this certainly would have been pointed out, lest Jesus lead astray His followers into seriously false and dangerous doctrine (according to how Protestants view it).
“Therefore, it is assumed in the story that Abraham had the ability and authority to do so on his own” is a sequitur, but not the only sequitur available.
Not the only, but by far the best and most plausible.
There is not the slightest hint of condemnation or opposition to the notion of praying to Abraham.
Probably because it is not the main teaching point that Jesus wishes to emphasise. Does this mean, by your same method, that Jesus thinks a camel can go through the eye of a needle? …. there is no negation of this possibility.
That’s a silly example because it is clearly Hebrew exaggeration and hyperbole (which He often used), and that is not the case at all here. It is a literal re-telling of a story that appears to have actually happened. But even if it didn’t (if it is a parable), Jesus could never mislead with false theology. God is never mentioned in the story. The prayer goes to Abraham. (that Taken flatly denies) I would say that it is understood that the power to grant it goes back to God, based on teaching elsewhere. Hebrew culture was based on many shared common premises that were understood.
Fine, Jesus’ original audience (John’s ‘Jewish context’) would have thought the original camel proposition quite absurd.
No; anyone who knew anything at all about genre and Hebrew idiom and culture would understand it as hyperbole. But educated people sometimes do misunderstand anyway (like Nicodemus and the “born again” issue). Note that Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for that, implying that he should have known that he was speaking spiritually and not literally.
Why is it not fair to take a contour on the ‘Rich man’ that he too was attempting something desperate but unreal?
Because Jesus the teller of the story didn’t state that and correct it.
I think there is a valid distinction between the realms of the temporal and the eternal. If not then universalism beckons where repentance and petition post-mortem would be the norm.
Of course there is. But it remains the case that someone other than God is prayed to here, and that is anathema to @Taken. Secondly, this is not yet the eternal realm, but Hades / Sheol, which is not the final state, but an intermediate one.
Jesus did say that the rich man prayed to Abraham, asking him to fulfill his petitionary requests
Thank you!
but where did he say this was an authoritative norm?
He doesn’t have to. The presence of the practice in the story, without being rebuked, is proof that it is legitimate.
What he did say about prayer was , “Our Father ….”
That was given as a quintessential example of prayer. It doesn’t follow that any other form is invalid, so it proves nothing as to our dispute.
Dialogue On The Rich Man Praying To Abraham (Luke 16)
Reply regarding my use of the story of Lazarus & the rich man (Lk 16:19-31), & the latter praying to Abraham, in defense of the intercession of the saints.
www.patheos.com
Scripture teaches to NOT solicit DEAD People.
There is not the slightest hint of condemnation or opposition to the notion of praying to Abraham.
Last edited:
