The Baldie Vs Mariology

[Spartacus]

God's omnipotence would not violate His omniscience.

I really don't think you understand the question.

[foudroyant]

People may share in God's knowledge but they will never have the same level of God's knowledge.

[Spartacus]

People may share in God's knowledge but they will never have the same level of God's knowledge.

Correct. So God can share some degree of knowledge without sharing all of it. Why could He not share knowledge of people's hearts without making the person totally omniscient?

[foudroyant]

http://www.studylight.org/com/whe/view.cgi?bk=18&ch=65
2. Gill: O thou that hearest prayer,.... So as to answer it sooner or later, in one way or another, and always in the fittest time, and in the best way; so as to fulfil the requests and supply the wants of men, so far as may be for their good, and God's glory; which is a proof of the omnipresence, omniscience, and all sufficiency of God; who can hear the prayers of his people in all places at the same time, and knows all their persons and wants, and what is most proper for them, and can and does supply all their needs, and causes all grace to abound towards them; and it also shows his wondrous grace and condescension, to listen to the cries and regard the prayers of the poor and destitute
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?bk=18&ch=65

[foudroyant]

Correct. So God can share some degree of knowledge without sharing all of it. Why could He not share knowledge of people's hearts without making the person totally omniscient?

Because to receive prayer necessitates that the hearts of such people are FULLY known and to FULLY know the hearts is a prerogative of God alone.

[robrecht]

Again, the Greek, the names are all in the genitive case. Luke was explicit. It is the interpretation of the translator, who adds the additional words "the son" which is NOT in the Greek The KJV, RV, ASV, NASB and the NKJV all show that is the case, having the added words "the son" in italics to show the reader that is the thranslators interpretation. Another example of this genitive case being mistranslated in every translation is Mark 2:26, "Abiathar the high priest." The Greek for high priest is in the genitive case. Where it should be translated "Abiathar [son] of the high priest." Maids and servants of the high priest are not called "high priest." Neither should Abiathar in that historical context.

You are partially making my point. There is absolutely nothing in the text of Luke to indicate that he is speaking of anything other than a normal father-son relationship. There's nothing in the text about Levirite marriage or Eli adopting Joseph or Eli being Joseph's father-in-law, no foreign parentheses, etc. Nothing. These ideas are all inserted into the text by those who want to claim there are no contradictions between Luke and Matthew or between Luke and the Jewish scriptures. Absent any of these ideas being inserted into the text, the basic simplest meaning of the text is that Eli was Joseph's father and there is no reason to understand it any differently based on the text of Luke.

You are also trying to force a meaning upon the text of Mk 2,26 that is just not there. The reason for the genitive in Mark is not because of sonship but because it is part of a prepositional phrase with the preposition 'epi' which takes the genitive case and commonly indicates 'the time of' or somtimes even 'in the presence of'. Mark would not use a prepositional phrase to indicate that Abiathar is the son of the high priest at that time: during the time of Abiathar, who was the son of the high priest. If he wanted to indicate the time when Abiathar's father was high priest, he would simply have used Abiathar's father's name. If someone wanted to refer to the political leadership in the US during the years of 1992-2000, would anyone ever say 'during the time when Chelsea Clinton, who was the daughter of President Bill Clinton'? No, we'd just say 'when Bill Clinton was president'. Your twisting the normal meaning of a text out of fear that there might be a minor inaccuracy. Did Mark make a small mistake, perhaps. Matthew and/or Luke probably thought so since they both deleted the whole phrase. If they understood the prepositional phrase to mean 'during the time of Abiathar the son of the high priest' they would have kept it or worded it much less awkwardly, eg, putting in the name of the actual high priest at the time. But rather than correct Jesus (or Mark), implying that one of them made a mistake, perhaps it seemed safer to delete the phrase entirely. Personally, I don't think it is a big deal. Abiathar soon became high priest so there's no real issue. Jesus did do this in the presence of Abiathar, who did soon become high priest. Or even if Jesus or more likely Mark had a lapse of memory and thought Abiathar was high priest at that time, why is that such a big deal?

[Spartacus]

Because to receive prayer necessitates that the hearts of such people are FULLY known and to FULLY know the hearts is a prerogative of God alone.

Why can God not share that knowledge?

[foudroyant]

Because kardiognwsta (Greek) means the heart-knower of all and it is used in describing the omniscience of God.

[Spartacus]

Because kardiognwsta (Greek) means the heart-knower of all and it is used in describing the omniscience of God.

The saint doesn't have to know the heart of everyone, just the one(s) God shows to them.

[foudroyant]

The saint doesn't have to know the heart of everyone, just the one(s) God shows to them.

To know the totality of just one heart is the same thing as being omniscient.

TDNT: The designation of God as ho kardiognwstes, "the One who knows the heart," expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both the NT and OT piety (Lk. 16:15; R. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:23 of Christ, cf. 1 Bas. 16:7; 3 Bas. 8:39; 1 Par. 28:9; Psalm 7:9; Ier. 11:20; 17:10; Sir. 42:18 ff.), namely that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstes, Behm).

[Spartacus]

To know the totality of just one heart is the same thing as being omniscient.

TDNT: The designation of God as ho kardiognwstes, "the One who knows the heart," expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both the NT and OT piety (Lk. 16:15; R. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:23 of Christ, cf. 1 Bas. 16:7; 3 Bas. 8:39; 1 Par. 28:9; Psalm 7:9; Ier. 11:20; 17:10; Sir. 42:18 ff.), namely that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstes, Behm).

Knowing one heart is the exactly the same thing as knowing everything? That's absurd on its very face. Have you considered that calling God the one who knows the heart might be metonymy rather than a perfect summary of what it means to be omniscient?

[foudroyant]

Knowing one heart is the exactly the same thing as knowing everything? That's absurd on its very face. Have you considered that calling God the one who knows the heart might be metonymy rather than a perfect summary of what it means to be omniscient?

If you don't want to believe how kardiognwsta is properly defined that is your choice. Other dictionaries and lexicons express the same thing.

[robrecht]

All right, guys, knock if off! How do you think Mary feels about all of you arguing about her?

[One Bad Pig]

Nothing in James teaches to pray to those (other than God) in heaven. You cited the Book of James so prove your point.

I'm not citing James to prove anything so specific as that. As I stated before, the saints in heaven are righteous. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. Therefore, the prayers of the saints in heaven avail much; that's why we ask them to pray for us. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that.

I am not talking about praying FOR someone but praying TO someone.

So am I!

My reference to Romans 8:26-27 has not been addressed.

Your reference to Romans 8:26-27 is entirely beside the point. Yes, the Spirit makes intercession for us, beyond what we even know how to utter, because He knows our hearts. The saints do not know our hearts, and thus cannot put into words what we cannot. Nobody expects them to. Please stop claiming that we do.

[foudroyant]

I'm not citing James to prove anything so specific as that. As I stated before, the saints in heaven are righteous. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. Therefore, the prayers of the saints in heaven avail much; that's why we ask them to pray for us. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that.

So am I!

Your reference to Romans 8:26-27 is entirely beside the point. Yes, the Spirit makes intercession for us, beyond what we even know how to utter, because He knows our hearts. The saints do not know our hearts, and thus cannot put into words what we cannot. Nobody expects them to. Please stop claiming that we do.

Citing James then does not support your argument at all. It is dealing with asking those on earth to pray for you. To insist that it refers (also) to asking those in heaven is eisegesis.

Romans 8:26-27 disproves your heretical belief that saints in heaven can be prayed to. Only God is able to fully know the mind of the Spirit - the source of which these prayers come from.

Psalm 62:5 also refutes that belief that anyone other than God in heaven is to be prayed to.