It's pretty funny Coke Bear. It's ok, you can watch it even without a papal impramatur. It's more or less historically accurate hitting dates and bullet points, but uses language as if it was occuring in an internet group chat. It isn't intended to start a theological debate.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I was asking a sincere question to try to better understand your post and I was met with a non-answer."

You are dishonest in that post.

First, in no way could a reasonable person take my reply as a "non-answer". I have seen people try that tactic, when they want to coerce someone to say what they want, or only speak as they want them to.

I do not respond well to such tactics, sir.

Second, on this board there is an unfortunate pattern of conflict between people of goodwill who also unfortunately can be very stubborn on opinions. I appreciate the members here who try to build bridges more than those who mostly try to win arguments.

I think all Christians can agree that Christ is not a fan of 'gotcha' questions or traps.

---

Seriously, do you suffer from some type of PTSD or another trauma that makes you respond like this?

There is NOTHING dishonest in my original post OR any of the following posts.


Here is the exchange between us ...


OB83 - When you pray to someone you never met, how exactly do you confirm you are speaking to the person you mean, and not someone else?

CB - I truly want to understand this point as well, so that we're not talking past each other.

Are you asking how when a person prays (asks) a saint in heaven to pray for us, how do we know that we are talking to that specific saint?


OB83 - That's a question for you. I do not pray to people.


CB - You don't ask people to pray for you?

I was asking a sincere question to try to better understand your post and I was met with a non-answer.


There was no "gotcha-moment" in there. I am sincerely trying to understand what you mean.

You then claimed that I was "dishonest" in my post.

I wasn't. Please look carefully at your bolded response. It literally does NOT answer my (asked for clarification) question that preceded it.

My goal is to respond accurately and with charity to a question, ensuring that I am addressing your specific question not my version of your question. I want to answer at what lies at the heart of your challenge.

I meant no ill-will or malice.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You don't understand the difference between asking someone you know to pray for you, and praying to someone?

---

No, I guess I don't.

What do you think pray to means?

---

** sigh **

I already told you I don't play word games.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You don't understand the difference between asking someone you know to pray for you, and praying to someone?

---

No, I guess I don't.

What do you think pray to means?

---

** sigh **

I already told you I don't play word games.

---

Dude, I'm not playing word games. I am asking an honest question. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand that I'm NOT out to get you.

Words and language matter. We should all try to understand and agree on language so that there is NO confusion and to limit misunderstanding.

I could assume WHAT you mean, but I am trying to give you an opportunity for you to provide clarity and a definition of that phase. This is the source of great amount of our misunderstandings on this forum.

(muttering 'inner peace, inner peace' to myself as I compose this)

The word to means direction and intent, focus. When you speak to someone, for example, you are trying to communicate directly with that person, and that person is someone you can identify by sight, location or some other means to reference them specifically and without confusion or misdirection.

To pray to someone, means to direct your prayers to that person as the recipient, and again focusing on that person as the object of your prayer.

A Christian should only pray TO the Lord, full stop. Praying to another human is on the same level as worshipping that person, and is exceedingly dangerous as it offers to a human what is only mean to be given to God.


With that said, speaking for someone is to speak in their behalf to a third party, such as commending one of your employees to your own superior for a recommendation of reward, or in case of trouble, exoneration.

Praying for someone else, then, is to ask God for help, honor, or mercy for someone you believe needs it.

Scripture makes clear we are to pray for each other, as brothers and sisters who love each other. Nowhere are we ever told to pray to each other.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Peter was the preeminent leader."

You are welcome to that opinion. Please respect others who note that Scripture never says that.

---

Fair enough. Please respect that I, nor the Catholic Church, note that sola Scriptura is unbiblical and it never says that as well.

---

Sola Scriptura is Biblical:

"[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

"[25] Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: "
Luke 24:25

Jesus always referred back to the scriptures with the phrase "it is written" or "is it not written".

The Holy Spirit wrote Scripture

"[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:21 KJV

Thank you for your patient, honest, and thorough answer.

Oldbear83 said:

---

(muttering 'inner peace, inner peace' to myself as I compose this)

The word to means direction and intent, focus. When you speak to someone, for example, you are trying to communicate directly with that person, and that person is someone you can identify by sight, location or some other means to reference them specifically and without confusion or misdirection.

---

I won't get into the weeds on your definition, but for the sake of this argument, I will accept and abide by it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

To pray to someone, means to direct your prayers to that person as the recipient, and again focusing on that person as the object of your prayer.

---

I accept this as YOUR understanding of what you believe "praying to" means.

This is NOT what Catholics mean. What we mean by "praying to" a saint, we are ASKING them to pray to God for us. That is it.

This is just as if I was to ask you to pray for me. You are not the object that I'm focusing on. I'm just asking you for prayers.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Praying to another human is on the same level as worshipping that person, and is exceedingly dangerous as it offers to a human what is only mean to be given to God.

---

Catholics would whole heartedly agree that we shouldn't worship anyone but God. We agree that we should only offer God latria, the highest form of honor and praise.

Asking someone (or saint) for their prayers is not worship. It's simply making a request.

I'm not sure what you believe happens when Catholics/Orthodox ask the saints for prayers. We aren't giving them worship. These prayers are directed to God.

For example, every morning and evening I pray to God "to be a better husband and father to my wife and kids. Help me affirm them daily."
I then ask St. Joseph to pray for me. He is the best example of an earthly father and husband the world ever saw. I want someone that holy praying for me.

Let's investigate the Hail Mary prayer. This is probably the second most Christian prayer offered up God.

Quote:

---

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

---

The above portion is straight from the bible: Luke 1:28 & 1:42, respectively. We call it the 'Angelic Salutation.' It is the greeting of Gabriel to Mary. I hope that we can both agree that there is nothing wrong in quoting scripture AND it's actually commendable.

The second part was established during the Bubonic plague era in Europe when we lost a third of the world's population -

Quote:

---

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

---

It is obvious that pray-ers of this prayer are asking Mary to pray for them. No one praying this is given Mary any worship. They are simply asking for her prayers.

I'm sure that you may have some issues with some or all of this. I am happy to address those.

I do ask you if the bible ever says that we are NOT supposed to ask others to pray for us.

Finally, if I could make one suggestion/request

ask the Blessed Mother to pray for you or someone you know or something or for her to reveal herself to you and see what happens.

Begin by letting God know that you are NOT trying to disobey Him in your prayer/request. Let Him know that you apologize and repent if it is wrong to even attempt this. God is merciful. He'll forgive you if this is a sin.

Ask her to pray for something (logically possible) but seems like a stretch and see what happens. If it's God's will, He will grant it.

A famous protestant apologist was on a podcast recently and was struggling with the notion of Mary being assumed into heaven. He asked God to give him a sign and went about his day. He didn't tell anyone about it. The next morning at the breakfast table his little girl, about 6 or so, said that she had a dream about Mary. He froze instantly. He then asked her what she was doing. She innocently told him that it looked like she was flying up into the sky.

I'm not stating that something like that will happen, but what's the worst thing that could happen other than you spent a few moments in earnest prayer?

Jic you missed the reference

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sola Scriptura is Biblical:

"[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

---

Please note that it does NOT say that "ONLY scripture is profitable …"

Believers in sola scriptura are taking a major leap here.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention 2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

We also have to remember that the first books of the NT weren't written until at least two decades after Jesus ascended into heaven. Other books would take another decade or three before they were written. Scripture wasn't relied upon to determine truth. It was the preaching and teachings of those in the Church.

It would be another 300 years before the Church determined WHAT was scripture.

Sola scriptura wasn't created until the 16th century.

So I reject sola scriptura as it was man-made more than 1000 years after we had established the NT.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The Holy Spirit wrote Scripture

"[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:21 KJV

---

We should be careful when making statements like this. Atheists don't believe in the Holy Spirit.

I feel that it is better to claim that the scriptures were Written by men, Inspired by the Holy Spirit - "God-breathed."

The writers were not robots with a quill and a scroll. Their writings were shaped by their personalities, cultures, and writing styles.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jic you missed the reference

---

My bad!!! How could I forget!

I do love Kung Fu Panda!

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sola Scriptura is Biblical:

"[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

---

Please note that it does NOT say that "ONLY scripture is profitable …"

Believers in sola scriptura are taking a major leap here.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention 2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

We also have to remember that the first books of the NT weren't written until at least two decades after Jesus ascended into heaven. Other books would take another decade or three before they were written. Scripture wasn't relied upon to determine truth. It was the preaching and teachings of those in the Church.

It would be another 300 years before the Church determined WHAT was scripture.

Sola scriptura wasn't created until the 16th century.

So I reject sola scriptura as it was man-made more than 1000 years after we had established the NT.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The Holy Spirit wrote Scripture

"[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:21 KJV

---

We should be careful when making statements like this. Atheists don't believe in the Holy Spirit.

I feel that it is better to claim that the scriptures were Written by men, Inspired by the Holy Spirit - "God-breathed."

The writers were not robots with a quill and a scroll. Their writings were shaped by their personalities, cultures, and writing styles.

---

But ONLY Scripture is inspired of God and threrefore ONLY Scripture can be trusted. Man can lie, including Ministers, Churches, Church Writings, but the Word of God never lies. Don't trust in men, trust in God alone.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sola Scriptura is Biblical:

"[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

---

Please note that it does NOT say that "ONLY scripture is profitable …"

Believers in sola scriptura are taking a major leap here.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention 2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

We also have to remember that the first books of the NT weren't written until at least two decades after Jesus ascended into heaven. Other books would take another decade or three before they were written. Scripture wasn't relied upon to determine truth. It was the preaching and teachings of those in the Church.

It would be another 300 years before the Church determined WHAT was scripture.

Sola scriptura wasn't created until the 16th century.

So I reject sola scriptura as it was man-made more than 1000 years after we had established the NT.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The Holy Spirit wrote Scripture

"[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:21 KJV

---

We should be careful when making statements like this. Atheists don't believe in the Holy Spirit.

I feel that it is better to claim that the scriptures were Written by men, Inspired by the Holy Spirit - "God-breathed."

The writers were not robots with a quill and a scroll. Their writings were shaped by their personalities, cultures, and writing styles.

---

these atheists, I will pray for them.. the Holy Spirit is sensative loving being that is supposed to be a close personal helper in many things. He is the spirit of the Lord, of knowledge, of wisdom, of truth, of understanding, and should be your closest counsel. Look what they are missing by denying Him.

He is greived by their denial. Prayer for their inner spirit man to awaken is requested from all who beleive

.

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sola Scriptura is Biblical:

"[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

---

Please note that it does NOT say that "ONLY scripture is profitable …"

Believers in sola scriptura are taking a major leap here.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention 2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

We also have to remember that the first books of the NT weren't written until at least two decades after Jesus ascended into heaven. Other books would take another decade or three before they were written. Scripture wasn't relied upon to determine truth. It was the preaching and teachings of those in the Church.

It would be another 300 years before the Church determined WHAT was scripture.

Sola scriptura wasn't created until the 16th century.

So I reject sola scriptura as it was man-made more than 1000 years after we had established the NT.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The Holy Spirit wrote Scripture

"[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:21 KJV

---

We should be careful when making statements like this. Atheists don't believe in the Holy Spirit.

I feel that it is better to claim that the scriptures were Written by men, Inspired by the Holy Spirit - "God-breathed."

The writers were not robots with a quill and a scroll. Their writings were shaped by their personalities, cultures, and writing styles.

---

these atheists, I will pray for them.. the Holy Spirit is sensative loving being that is supposed to be a close personal helper in many things. He is the spirit of the Lord, of knowledge, of wisdom, of truth, of understanding, and should be your closest counsel. Look what they are missing by denying Him.

He is greived by their denial. Prayer for their inner spirit man to awaken is requested from all who beleive

---

Exactly. Thank you.

Out for a bit. Wife has surgery today.

When you ask a fellow living Christian to pray for you, you require a response from that person as a way to know they actually received your request. "Okay" or "yes, I will."

I ask those who believe they "ask" Mary and the saints to pray for them: what affirmative response do you receive from them? If you don't receive any, then you have to go on faith that they've received it. But upon what is this faith based? What divine revelation from God tells us that a certain departed person is 1) in heaven to begin with, and 2) has the capacity to receive your prayers?

There is nothing in Scripture whatsoever about departed people in heaven having this capacity. There is no example in all of Scripture where a living person communicated with a departed person - save one, which is when King Saul talked supposedly to the spirit of Samuel - which was conjured up by a witch. So what Saul did was wicked, and completely forbidden. So upon what divinely revealed knowledge, revelation that we know came from God, is this belief based on?

Also note that by believing a departed person in heaven is able to receive your prayers, even the ones from your heart and not made vocally or in written form, you are essentially conferring upon that person the attributes of deity. Attributes which, again, you are told NOWHERE in Scripture or by any other confirmed revelation from God that depared saints have. Attributes which we are only told God has. So yes, this would be a form of idolatry.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Out for a bit. Wife has surgery today.

---

Sorry to hear that. Praying now. God bless.

Prayers for your wife here as well, including one for a complete and speedy recovery.

.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

We have to interpret Scripture Literally unless directed otherwise. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture.


"[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV

We need the Holy Spirit to help us:

"[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

---

Isn't that human interpretation? The Bible was written in three languages. Word choices by translators have different meanings. People have to choose which translations they prefer to read.

1 Peter 3:21 -

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. "

---

How can water baptism save you, if according to the RC literal interpretation of John 6 a person's salvation is fully contingent upon whether they literally eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood in the Eucharist, NOT upon water baptism? If water baptism saves you, then Jesus wasn't being literal in John 6. If Jesus was being literal, then water baptism is not what saves you, eating his flesh is what does. You can't believe both.

No Roman Catholic has ever been able to resolve this fatal contradiction (not cogently or rationally, that is). So why do you guys keep repeating this argument?

---

Anyone?

How can the Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture supporting baptismal regeneration be correct, when it conflicts with their literal interpretation of John 6?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

We have to interpret Scripture Literally unless directed otherwise. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture.


"[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV

We need the Holy Spirit to help us:

"[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

---

Isn't that human interpretation? The Bible was written in three languages. Word choices by translators have different meanings. People have to choose which translations they prefer to read.

1 Peter 3:21 -

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. "

---

How can water baptism save you, if according to the RC literal interpretation of John 6 a person's salvation is fully contingent upon whether they literally eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood in the Eucharist, NOT upon water baptism? If water baptism saves you, then Jesus wasn't being literal in John 6. If Jesus was being literal, then water baptism is not what saves you, eating his flesh is what does. You can't believe both.

No Roman Catholic has ever been able to resolve this fatal contradiction (not cogently or rationally, that is). So why do you guys keep repeating this argument?

---

Anyone?

How can the Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture supporting baptismal regeneration be correct, when it conflicts with their literal interpretation of John 6?

---

It doesn't conflict, as we've often explained.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

We have to interpret Scripture Literally unless directed otherwise. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture.


"[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV

We need the Holy Spirit to help us:

"[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

---

Isn't that human interpretation? The Bible was written in three languages. Word choices by translators have different meanings. People have to choose which translations they prefer to read.

1 Peter 3:21 -

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. "

---

How can water baptism save you, if according to the RC literal interpretation of John 6 a person's salvation is fully contingent upon whether they literally eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood in the Eucharist, NOT upon water baptism? If water baptism saves you, then Jesus wasn't being literal in John 6. If Jesus was being literal, then water baptism is not what saves you, eating his flesh is what does. You can't believe both.

No Roman Catholic has ever been able to resolve this fatal contradiction (not cogently or rationally, that is). So why do you guys keep repeating this argument?

---

Anyone?

How can the Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture supporting baptismal regeneration be correct, when it conflicts with their literal interpretation of John 6?

---

It doesn't conflict, as we've often explained.

---

Which is why I said "cogent and rational" explanation. Not gas lighting and double talk.

.

Anyone else interested in doing an online study of Thomas Kempis "The Imitation of Christ"?

I'm about 50 pages into it, and it honestly is one of the best small primers on Christian living that I've found outside of Proverbs and "Thirty Steps to Heaven".

Realitybites said:

---

Anyone else interested in doing an online study of Thomas Kempis "The Imitation of Christ"?

I'm about 50 pages into it, and it honestly is one of the best small primers on Christian living that I've found outside of Proverbs and "Thirty Steps to Heaven".

---

What exactly is it?

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Realitybites said:

---

Anyone else interested in doing an online study of Thomas Kempis "The Imitation of Christ"?

I'm about 50 pages into it, and it honestly is one of the best small primers on Christian living that I've found outside of Proverbs and "Thirty Steps to Heaven".

---

Thomas Kempis, who wrote The Imitation of Christ.
It is one of the most influential Christian devotional books ever written, originally published in the early 15th century.
What is the book about?
It focuses on:
Following the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.
Humility and obedience to God.
Denying worldly desires and pride.
Developing an intimate relationship with Christ.
Seeking God rather than recognition from people.
Remaining faithful through suffering and tribulation.
One of its central themes is that knowing Christ is more important than merely knowing about Christ.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Anyone else interested in doing an online study of Thomas Kempis "The Imitation of Christ"?

I'm about 50 pages into it, and it honestly is one of the best small primers on Christian living that I've found outside of Proverbs and "Thirty Steps to Heaven".

---

Thomas Kempis, who wrote The Imitation of Christ.
It is one of the most influential Christian devotional books ever written, originally published in the early 15th century.
What is the book about?
It focuses on:
Following the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.
Humility and obedience to God.
Denying worldly desires and pride.
Developing an intimate relationship with Christ.
Seeking God rather than recognition from people.
Remaining faithful through suffering and tribulation.
One of its central themes is that knowing Christ is more important than merely knowing about Christ.

---

sounds like a good read.. any chance it is found on audio book?

Edit: ignore the emoji- no idea how that happened

4th and Inches said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Anyone else interested in doing an online study of Thomas Kempis "The Imitation of Christ"?

I'm about 50 pages into it, and it honestly is one of the best small primers on Christian living that I've found outside of Proverbs and "Thirty Steps to Heaven".

---

Thomas Kempis, who wrote The Imitation of Christ.
It is one of the most influential Christian devotional books ever written, originally published in the early 15th century.
What is the book about?
It focuses on:
Following the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.
Humility and obedience to God.
Denying worldly desires and pride.
Developing an intimate relationship with Christ.
Seeking God rather than recognition from people.
Remaining faithful through suffering and tribulation.
One of its central themes is that knowing Christ is more important than merely knowing about Christ.

---

sounds like a good read.. any chance it is found on audio book?

Edit: ignore the emoji- no idea how that happened

---

I am not sure. I actually copied and pasted this from chat GPT to give a description of what it is. Someone else posted it.