Praying to Mary is worshiping Mary

[tabibito]

neither is your opinion that you are so fond of.

You are ducking from Romans 8:27.

Romans 8:26 we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

The Holy Spirit makes intercession for us. Is he the only one? I thought Jesus also makes intercession for us.
"He who searches the hearts" is God, who knows what the mind of the Holy Spirit is (I didn't capitalise "Spirit" - the translators did). And the Holy Spirit makes intercession.

My opinions are not second hand - and I am not one who says "The Bible says this, but it really means ...". If people have a problem with my opinions, I am happy to re-examine them when presented with new information that calls those opinions into question. You, however, don't have the capacity to either present new information or critically examine your opinions and change them as warranted. And often enough, I have admitted when my opinions have been deficient or wrong. You don't have the capacity to demonstrate that your second hand opinions have any substance. Nor have your second hand opinions been put to the test in the field.

[TimelessTheist]

Romans 8:27 contradicts praying to Mary...the subject of this thread.

How does it contradict it?

[foudroyant]

See Post #797.

[tabibito]

How does it contradict it?

You have to mis-read it before it is possible to claim that the contradiction exists.
What it says is: God is the searcher of hearts, and the Holy Spirit makes intercession when we don't know what our prayer should be. God knows what the Holy Spirit has in mind, and has appointed the Holy Spirit to the fulfil the office of intercession.

First you have to ignore the point that this is about circumstances when people don't know how to pray.
Next you have to ignore the point that the Holy Spirit is not the only intercessor.
So you can then say, the only intercessor appointed by God in all circumstances is the Holy Spirit.
It's much the same process as is used by the sola fide crowd to demonstrate that people are saved by faith alone.

[robrecht]

To thee all flesh shall come. This refers to worship. People go to God in prayer which is worship.
All the rest of creation of impersonal things anthropomorphically gives praise to God so your point misses what the text is saying.
God can hear all prayers - even silent ones - by myriads of people with a vast array of requests, for any length of time at any period of time and fully understand them.

Can anyone else do the same?
Nope.


You didn't address Romans 8:26-27.
Post #797
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ng-Mary/page80

You missed my point entirely. To use psalms of praise of God to make polemical doctrinal points against religious enemies sort of misses the real meaning of worship. If you want to understand this psalm in its original context, respond to my point about the Masoretic vocalization. Otherwise, it seems once again as if you are not interested in a real conversation. Most of the Hebrew scriptures were written during a time when there was no clear belief in the afterlife and resurrection of the dead, and certainly no sense of the Body of Christ being charged with intercession for one another. As these beliefs evolved, you find prayer for the dead in later scriptures, such as Maccabees and you find, even among Jews who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, a more widespread sense of our worshipping God in the presence of angelic or heavenly worship. You also find this in the earliest liturgy of the Church, the divine liturgy of St James, and elsewhere in the New Testament one finds angels being involved in the presentation of our prayers to God. You refuse to consider the biblical accounts of discourse with and mediation of angels and consider the authors of the earliest liturgy of the Church to be 'moronic idiots'. I don't think there is much room for discussion with you on account of your attitude.

I have no dispute with Paul's letter to the Romans. It certainly does not forbid what James commands, ie, intercession for one another. All creation groans for the revelation of the sons of God. All of God's creation is directed toward the worship of God, including all the angels and saints.

[apostoli]

apostoli is seriously demented.
See Post #49
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rd-Jesus/page5

Nuff said about that
To this quack

If I am seriously demented, why is it that you are unable to affirm the most basic of Christian belief????

__________________________

Here is what I originally asked you, at least thirty times. Not once have you had the confidence of conviction to directly answer me at least once (though you did provide a diversion to each post).

Questions arise regarding your opinion: Do you ascribe to the Nicene Creed or reject it? Do you believe that before his incarnation the Son was begotten by his Father, not made, God from God? Do you believe that the Son is a distinct entity/individual from his Father? Do you believe the scripture's account that the Son was incarnated not of his own volition but was sent by his Father? Do you believe that in the end of times the Son will share his Father's throne, at the will of the Father? Do you believe, as A.Paul certainly did, that God (the Father) raised Jesus from the dead? Do you believe, as the apostles John & Paul certainly did, that all Jesus did was for the glorification of his Father (cp. Jn 17, Phil 2)

So far, foudroyant, in his general cowardice, has not affirmed or denied any of the above propositions. Even though they are all Biblically substantiated!!!

I've simply concluded he has had a puff too much on the weed...and has attached himself to what I call the "christian taliban in the USA" (those, who for no rational reason, hate Jews, Catholics & Blacks and reject most Christian belief).

__________________________

On another thread, it came plainly obvious to me that foudroyant does not subscribe to any form of Orthodox or Protestant mainstream Christianity (I assume he is a Sabellian (oneness pentecostal)...

Elsewhere, I presented him with a few standard Christian propositions. He, over a lengthy period of time, and multiple repetitions on my part, resorted to a range of diversions and never responded to my direct queries. I'll summarise what I have had to conclude are his denials of standard/orthodox/mainstream Christian faith:

1. foudroyant apparently rejects the teaching of the Nicene Creed, even though it has been reaffirmed continuously by the majority churches since at least 325CE.

2. foudroyant apparently rejects that Jesus was begotten of the Father, not made, God from God.

3. foudroyant apparently rejects that the Son is a distinct entity/individual/person from his Father. ( foudroyant apparently assumes, despite the testimony of scripture, that the Father and Son are simply fabrications of the same person).

4. foudroyant apparently believes the Son was incarnated as a phantasm, not a real person, who obviously, as being such, could not die on the cross.

5. foudroyant apparently believes the Father and the Son are simply manifestations of the same person. If so, then, obviously, foudroyant rejects the witness of the NT, and most particularly rejects A.John's testimony in the book of Revelation. Which is most strange! Given A.John, in his vision. has it that, in the end of times, the Son shares his Father's throne.

6. foudroyant apparently rejects A.Paul's testimony that God (the Father) raised Jesus from the dead! ((Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37; Rom. 4:24; 6:4; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 1:1; Col. 2:12; Rom 8:11).

7. foudroyant apparently rejects A.John's & A.Paul's inspired testimony, that all Jesus did, including his death and resurrection, was for the glorification of his Father (cp. Jn 17, Phil 2)

__________________________

foudroyant, you can run but you cannot hide. There are many people here that have known me for years, and though some may not agree with my every premise I am confident I would garner more support than what I assume is your oneness pentecostal (or personal) trash...

[foudroyant]

If I am seriously demented, why is it that you are unable to affirm the most basic of Christian belief????

First, because before this time I asked you a question and you wouldn't answer it. Second, I already told you to start a thread elsewhere concerning Modalism because the topic under discussion is whether the Lord Jesus is the recipient of prayer in the writings of Paul.

[foudroyant]

First you have to ignore the point that this is about circumstances when people don't know how to pray.

Interesting to see that you are better at prayer than Paul.
"For WE (Paul includes himself) do not know how to pray as we should" (Romans 8:26, NASB, emphasis mine)

First the denial of how words are defined and now the claim to be better at prayer than Paul.

Your arrogance stubbornly marches on.

[foudroyant]

You missed my point entirely. To use psalms of praise of God to make polemical doctrinal points against religious enemies sort of misses the real meaning of worship.

No, Psalm 139 has plenty of doctrinal points.
Maccabees isn't Scripture.

[Bill the Cat]

First, because before this time I asked you a question and you wouldn't answer it. Second, I already told you to start a thread elsewhere concerning Modalism because the topic under discussion is whether the Lord Jesus is the recipient of prayer in the writings of Paul.

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Foudroyant and Apostoli, we are discussing among staff right now where the appropriate area for this particular discussion should be, but it needs to be addressed, Foudroyant. Your answers will determine which areas you are allowed to post in and which you aren't.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[apostoli]

First, because before this time I asked you a question and you wouldn't answer it. Second, I already told you to start a thread elsewhere concerning Modalism because the topic under discussion is whether the Lord Jesus is the recipient of prayer in the writings of Paul.

Firstly, demonstrate to me once where I did not directly answer your questions!!!!

Secondly, your view of prayer involves what I interpret as your "oneness belief". So, it is directly on topic!!!

Sometime ago, in another thread, I directly quoted Jesus, wherein he said "This is how you are to pray..." Apparently you reject Jesus' instruction/s...,

__________________________

Here is what I originally asked foudroyant, numerous times. Not once has foudroyant had the confidence of conviction to directly answer me at least once (though as he has done here, he did attempt to provide a diversion to avoid answering the direct question/s).

Questions arise regarding your opinion: Do you ascribe to the Nicene Creed or reject it? Do you believe that before his incarnation the Son was begotten by his Father, not made, God from God? Do you believe that the Son is a distinct entity/individual from his Father? Do you believe the scripture's account that the Son was incarnated not of his own volition but was sent by his Father? Do you believe that in the end of times the Son will share his Father's throne, at the will of the Father? Do you believe, as A.Paul certainly did, that God (the Father) raised Jesus from the dead? Do you believe, as the apostles John & Paul certainly did, that all Jesus did was for the glorification of his Father (cp. Jn 17, Phil 2)

So far, foudroyant, in his general cowardice, has not affirmed or denied any of the above propositions. Even though they are all Biblically substantiated!!!

I've simply concluded he has had a puff too much on the weed...and has attached himself to what I call the "christian taliban in the USA" (those, who for no rational reason, hate Jews, Catholics & Blacks and reject most Christian belief).

__________________________

On another thread, it came plainly obvious to me that foudroyant does not subscribe to any form of Orthodox or Protestant mainstream Christianity (I assume he is a Sabellian (oneness pentecostal)...

Elsewhere, I presented him with a few standard Christian propositions. He, over a lengthy period of time, and multiple repetitions on my part, resorted to a range of diversions and never responded to my direct queries. I'll summarise what I have had to conclude are his denials of standard/orthodox/mainstream Christian faith:

1. foudroyant apparently rejects the teaching of the Nicene Creed, even though it has been reaffirmed continuously by the majority churches since at least 325CE.

2. foudroyant apparently rejects that Jesus was begotten of the Father, not made, God from God.

3. foudroyant apparently rejects that the Son is a distinct entity/individual/person from his Father. ( foudroyant apparently assumes, despite the testimony of scripture, that the Father and Son are simply fabrications of the same person).

4. foudroyant apparently believes the Son was incarnated as a phantasm, not a real person, who obviously, as being such, could not die on the cross.

5. foudroyant apparently believes the Father and the Son are simply manifestations of the same person. If so, then, obviously, foudroyant rejects the witness of the NT, and most particularly rejects A.John's testimony in the book of Revelation. Which is most strange! Given A.John, in his vision. has it that, in the end of times, the Son shares his Father's throne.

6. foudroyant apparently rejects A.Paul's testimony that God (the Father) raised Jesus from the dead! ((Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37; Rom. 4:24; 6:4; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 1:1; Col. 2:12; Rom 8:11).

7. foudroyant apparently rejects A.John's & A.Paul's inspired testimony, that all Jesus did, including his death and resurrection, was for the glorification of his Father (cp. Jn 17, Phil 2)

__________________________

foudroyant, you can run but you cannot hide. There are many people here that have known me for years, and though some may not agree with my every premise I am confident I would garner more support than what I assume is your oneness pentecostal (or personal) trash...

[foudroyant]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Foudroyant and Apostoli, we are discussing among staff right now where the appropriate area for this particular discussion should be, but it needs to be addressed, Foudroyant. Your answers will determine which areas you are allowed to post in and which you aren't.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

Have him start another thread about Modalism. This topic is unrelated here and in the JW section. I already wrote in the JW section that I believe in the Trinity and yet he hasn't answered my question.

[apostoli]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Foudroyant and Apostoli, we are discussing among staff right now where the appropriate area for this particular discussion should be, but it needs to be addressed, Foudroyant. Your answers will determine which areas you are allowed to post in and which you aren't.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

In humility I bow to the moderators...

As a suggestion, possibly two more sections might be added to the Forum list. One for Oneness believers and another for Christadelphians. Both are growth denominations in my area...

[foudroyant]

I asked Dee Dee quite some time ago (or was it Mossrose?) about starting a Oneness thread and I was told there wasn't a need for it (yet?).

[apostoli]

Have him start another thread about Modalism. This topic is unrelated here and in the JW section. I already wrote in the JW section that I believe in the Trinity and yet he hasn't answered my question.

My apologies. I must have missed that post. Point me to it.

Sabellianists (Oneness believers) believe in a form of trinity, three modes of appearance of a single person/entity that is God (this is what JWs regularly write about and reject)). Trinitarians believe in three distinct persons/entities (hypostases) wherein only the Father is authotheos (God of himself), the Son was begooten by the Father before the ages, God from God (homoousious) and the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and is sent to us by the Son...

My understanding of your perspective (based on your posts) is you reject the Nicean witness that has guided the Christian church since 325CE...

Obviously, the two disparate perspectives will influence the direction of our supplications and prayers. So as you should realise, your oneness perspective needs to be examined (especially as it is, in the opinion of the ancient and modern theologians unsupportable from scripture).