Scripture gives us some explicit insight and even examples of how to pray to God. Is there anything of the sort as it relates to this idea with with Mary?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Scripture gives us some explicit insight and even examples of how to pray to God. Is there anything of the sort as it relates to this idea with with Mary?

---

The word "pray" is way too broad in the English language. "Pray thee tell" were some of the most hated words for me in English Lit because it meant I was forced into reading something I didn't want to lol.

Scripture shows us how to worship God the Father. But Scripture does not show us the prayer automatically equals worship, and the original languages do a much better job of delineating between the two.

Zobel said:

---

What is different about asking me to pray for you (obviously ok) and asking the Theotokos to pray for you (obviously ok in my book, categorically different in yours)? I don't understand the difference, so to me one is as obvious as the other. What is the difference?

---

He apparently doesn't believe in Christ own words:

"51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats from this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of the world also is My flesh."
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves" -John 6: 51-52

If you can ask someone alive in this world to pray for you and with you then you can certainly ask someone who has eternal life to also pray for you. As stated in James,

"16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. A prayer of a righteous person, when it is brought about, can accomplish much." -James 5:16

Perhaps he doesn't believe in any of that one the either. Especially the first part. Nonetheless, I'm happy to enjoy the blessing and fullness of my faith and I'm happy to call anyone who says "Christ is Lord" as by brother and sister in Christ.

"24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let's follow the Spirit as well. 26 Let's not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another." -Gal 5:24-25

In the Kingdom of Judah, all of the Queen Mothers interceded for others to the King, like Queen Bathsheeba did to her son Solomon. Mary interceded at the wedding feast of Cana for the family to her son Jesus. As the Queen Mother of heaven, that role didn't go away, but was super enhanced....She is an intercessor for us to her son Jesus, the one mediator between God the Father and mankind...

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Maximus Johnson said:

---

Jesus alone bridges the gap between God and humanity
He does so because He is:
Fully God
Fully man
No angel, saint, priest, or pastor replaces or competes with this role

This is grounded in:
His incarnation ("the man Christ Jesus")
His atoning sacrifice ("ransom for all")

---

Can you show me where it says in scripture that he's fully man and fully God? No inferences, verbatim.

You're quoting the council of Chalcedon which isn't in the Bible

---

What are you trying to claim? We can't know from scripture that Jesus was fully God and fully man?

Is the argument that without the council we couldn't have known that?

---

Can you show me from scripture where it says he was fully God and fully man? Can you explain why there was enough questioning behind it that necessitated Chalcedon? Was 450 still in the good original Protestant period or had the ***** of Rome taken over yet?

---

Yes? Via the same methods that they used at Chalcedon (and Ephesus, Nicaea, and Constantinople).

But I think you actually misunderstand what the council was addressing.

Can you articulate what you think was being debated?

Zobel said:

---

What is different about asking me to pray for you (obviously ok) and asking the Theotokos to pray for you (obviously ok in my book, categorically different in yours)? I don't understand the difference, so to me one is as obvious as the other. What is the difference?

---

This is the most common response, but I've come to believe it falls flat.

This is what you are essentially claiming (please correct if I misunderstand it).

I reach out to you via some physical/personal medium (I talk to you on the phone, in-person, I text/email and you acknowledge, etc) and you respond by praying for me.

I reach out to Mary and ask her to pray for me (whether spoken outload, or in my mind, or written down, etc.), she hears this prayer and prays for me.

That's the comparison I think you want us to make.
-----------------

The challenge the Reformers, and frankly anybody should have is do we have any reason to believe that Mary, or any Saint, can hear these prayers?

The Lutherans asked that question:

Quote:

---

Moreover, even supposing that the saints pray for the Church ever so much, 10 yet it does not follow that they are to be invoked; although our Confession affirms only this, that Scripture does not teach the invocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid. But since neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can be produced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, it follows that conscience can have nothing concerning this invocation that is certain. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how do we know that God approves this invocation? Whence do we know without the testimony of Scripture that the saints perceive the prayers of each one?

Nothing can be produced by the adversaries against this reasoning, that, since invocation does not have a testimony from God's Word, it cannot be affirmed that the saints understand our invocation, or, even if they understand it, that God approves it.


(Source: https://bookofconcord.org/defense/of-the-invocation-of-saints/ )

---

-------------------------

And that becomes the difference. If we have no way of knowing whether Mary can hear us, nor whether God even approves of such behavior.
-------------------------------

To get ahead of the standard response from Rome, yes the Saints and Mary are alive in Christ. Part of a living Church, but that doesn't answer the question.

If I, at my desk right now in Texas, silently ask someone to pray from me, who is in another country, state, even building (ie. I do not actively reach out to them), I should not have any expectation that they heard me.
-----------------------

So your example becomes apples to oranges because we do not have a reasonable belief that Mary (or other Saints) actively hear every individual prayer made to them.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Maximus Johnson said:

---

Jesus alone bridges the gap between God and humanity
He does so because He is:
Fully God
Fully man
No angel, saint, priest, or pastor replaces or competes with this role

This is grounded in:
His incarnation ("the man Christ Jesus")
His atoning sacrifice ("ransom for all")

---

Can you show me where it says in scripture that he's fully man and fully God? No inferences, verbatim.

You're quoting the council of Chalcedon which isn't in the Bible

---

What are you trying to claim? We can't know from scripture that Jesus was fully God and fully man?

Is the argument that without the council we couldn't have known that?

---

Can you show me from scripture where it says he was fully God and fully man? Can you explain why there was enough questioning behind it that necessitated Chalcedon? Was 450 still in the good original Protestant period or had the ***** of Rome taken over yet?

---

Yes? Via the same methods that they used at Chalcedon (and Ephesus, Nicaea, and Constantinople).

But I think you actually misunderstand what the council was addressing.

Can you articulate what you think was being debated?

---

You're missing the point. Why did this need to be discussed in council if it's so plain upon reading the bible? You act as if people can come to different interpretations of biblical passages, but that would necessitate an external arbiter of truth, unless your point is that God is the author of confusion, truth depends on the individual and that is is the will of the Almighty that his flock be confused and fractured amongst myriad different interpretations.

LIke most councils, Chalcedon was called to clear confusion caused by heretical views of the economy of Christ's humanity and divinity. Nestorians (through their personal interpretation of scripture) were arguing that Christ's humanity and divinity were entirely separate while the people who's name looks like Eunuch (I can't remember off the top of my head) said they were mixed together uniformly in a singular nature.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Maximus Johnson said:

---

Jesus alone bridges the gap between God and humanity
He does so because He is:
Fully God
Fully man
No angel, saint, priest, or pastor replaces or competes with this role

This is grounded in:
His incarnation ("the man Christ Jesus")
His atoning sacrifice ("ransom for all")

---

Can you show me where it says in scripture that he's fully man and fully God? No inferences, verbatim.

You're quoting the council of Chalcedon which isn't in the Bible

---

What are you trying to claim? We can't know from scripture that Jesus was fully God and fully man?

Is the argument that without the council we couldn't have known that?

---

Can you show me from scripture where it says he was fully God and fully man? Can you explain why there was enough questioning behind it that necessitated Chalcedon? Was 450 still in the good original Protestant period or had the ***** of Rome taken over yet?

---

Yes? Via the same methods that they used at Chalcedon (and Ephesus, Nicaea, and Constantinople).

But I think you actually misunderstand what the council was addressing.

Can you articulate what you think was being debated?

---

You're missing the point. Why did this need to be discussed in council if it's so plain upon reading the bible? You act as if people can come to different interpretations of biblical passages, but that would necessitate an external arbiter of truth, unless your point is that God is the author of confusion, truth depends on the individual and that is is the will of the Almighty that his flock be confused and fractured amongst myriad different interpretations.

LIke most councils, Chalcedon was called to clear confusion caused by heretical views of the economy of Christ's humanity and divinity. Nestorians (through their personal interpretation of scripture) were arguing that Christ's humanity and divinity were entirely separate while the people who's name looks like Eunuch (I can't remember off the top of my head) said they were mixed together uniformly in a singular nature.

---

I'm not missing the point. I'm also not willing to accept the strawman you've made.

But your statement is also incorrect. Rome isn't claiming don't just "necessitate an external arbiter of truth." You claim this "arbiter" is infallible and specifically the pope.

I quite literally subscribe to the Book of Concord which, since I didn't write, means I defer at least part of my beliefs to an external arbiter. But neither I, nor those very writers claim any sort of infallibility.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What is different about asking me to pray for you (obviously ok) and asking the Theotokos to pray for you (obviously ok in my book, categorically different in yours)? I don't understand the difference, so to me one is as obvious as the other. What is the difference?

---

This is the most common response, but I've come to believe it falls flat.

This is what you are essentially claiming (please correct if I misunderstand it).

I reach out to you via some physical/personal medium (I talk to you on the phone, in-person, I text/email and you acknowledge, etc) and you respond by praying for me.

I reach out to Mary and ask her to pray for me (whether spoken outload, or in my mind, or written down, etc.), she hears this prayer and prays for me.

That's the comparison I think you want us to make.
-----------------

The challenge the Reformers, and frankly anybody should have is do we have any reason to believe that Mary, or any Saint, can hear these prayers?

The Lutherans asked that question:

Quote:

---

Moreover, even supposing that the saints pray for the Church ever so much, 10 yet it does not follow that they are to be invoked; although our Confession affirms only this, that Scripture does not teach the invocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid. But since neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can be produced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, it follows that conscience can have nothing concerning this invocation that is certain. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how do we know that God approves this invocation? Whence do we know without the testimony of Scripture that the saints perceive the prayers of each one?

Nothing can be produced by the adversaries against this reasoning, that, since invocation does not have a testimony from God's Word, it cannot be affirmed that the saints understand our invocation, or, even if they understand it, that God approves it.


(Source: https://bookofconcord.org/defense/of-the-invocation-of-saints/ )

---

-------------------------

And that becomes the difference. If we have no way of knowing whether Mary can hear us, nor whether God even approves of such behavior.
-------------------------------

To get ahead of the standard response from Rome, yes the Saints and Mary are alive in Christ. Part of a living Church, but that doesn't answer the question.

If I, at my desk right now in Texas, silently ask someone to pray from me, who is in another country, state, even building (ie. I do not actively reach out to them), I should not have any expectation that they heard me.
-----------------------

So your example becomes apples to oranges because we do not have a reasonable belief that Mary (or other Saints) actively hear every individual prayer made to them.

---

Is there a verse in Revelation where it says that the prayers of the faithful rise like incense to people on earth, or Saints in Heaven?

Everything you have mentioned above is the personal opinion of the Lutherans, which for you has become the truth. Rather than the successor of Peter and the Apostles, you have made some dudes you agree with the arbiter of what is truth; 1500 years after the founding of the Church, against centuries upon centuries of the witness of the Church.

---

Lol...The irony of making a claim about the pope that a significant portion of the church has rejected as proof that you're right.

St. Peter says that we will be partakers of the divine nature, which would include hearing prayers; otherwise, it's not divine nature. And I'm pretty sure the great cloud of witnesses (Mary included) is not deaf....

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Maximus Johnson said:

---

Jesus alone bridges the gap between God and humanity
He does so because He is:
Fully God
Fully man
No angel, saint, priest, or pastor replaces or competes with this role

This is grounded in:
His incarnation ("the man Christ Jesus")
His atoning sacrifice ("ransom for all")

---

Can you show me where it says in scripture that he's fully man and fully God? No inferences, verbatim.

You're quoting the council of Chalcedon which isn't in the Bible

---

What are you trying to claim? We can't know from scripture that Jesus was fully God and fully man?

Is the argument that without the council we couldn't have known that?

---

Can you show me from scripture where it says he was fully God and fully man? Can you explain why there was enough questioning behind it that necessitated Chalcedon? Was 450 still in the good original Protestant period or had the ***** of Rome taken over yet?

---

Yes? Via the same methods that they used at Chalcedon (and Ephesus, Nicaea, and Constantinople).

But I think you actually misunderstand what the council was addressing.

Can you articulate what you think was being debated?

---

You're missing the point. Why did this need to be discussed in council if it's so plain upon reading the bible? You act as if people can come to different interpretations of biblical passages, but that would necessitate an external arbiter of truth, unless your point is that God is the author of confusion, truth depends on the individual and that is is the will of the Almighty that his flock be confused and fractured amongst myriad different interpretations.

LIke most councils, Chalcedon was called to clear confusion caused by heretical views of the economy of Christ's humanity and divinity. Nestorians (through their personal interpretation of scripture) were arguing that Christ's humanity and divinity were entirely separate while the people who's name looks like Eunuch (I can't remember off the top of my head) said they were mixed together uniformly in a singular nature.

---

I'm not missing the point. I'm also not willing to accept the strawman you've made.

But your statement is also incorrect. Rome isn't claiming don't just "necessitate an external arbiter of truth." You claim this "arbiter" is infallible and specifically the pope.

I quite literally subscribe to the Book of Concord which, since I didn't write, means I defer at least part of my beliefs to an external arbiter. But neither I, nor those very writers claim any sort of infallibility.

---

I have good news for you, whatever the Book of Concord is, it is absolutely not infallible.

Despite your many years of study and the books you've written I can't believe you still don't understand the mechanism of infallibility. The Pope is not infallible. The Church is infallible. In his role as the Vicar of Christ, he speaks with the authority of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. When Christ comes back, the Pope will have literally zero authority. Christ is the High Priest, the Pope is looking after the Kingdom until the King's return.

I did a quick google search of the Book of Concord, I absolutely abhor google-fu during discussions, but I had no clue what it was, and it says it's the symbolic book of the ELCA, who ordains gay clergy and blesses gay marriages; so yes, definitely not infallible.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What is different about asking me to pray for you (obviously ok) and asking the Theotokos to pray for you (obviously ok in my book, categorically different in yours)? I don't understand the difference, so to me one is as obvious as the other. What is the difference?

---

This is the most common response, but I've come to believe it falls flat.

This is what you are essentially claiming (please correct if I misunderstand it).

I reach out to you via some physical/personal medium (I talk to you on the phone, in-person, I text/email and you acknowledge, etc) and you respond by praying for me.

I reach out to Mary and ask her to pray for me (whether spoken outload, or in my mind, or written down, etc.), she hears this prayer and prays for me.

That's the comparison I think you want us to make.
-----------------

The challenge the Reformers, and frankly anybody should have is do we have any reason to believe that Mary, or any Saint, can hear these prayers?

The Lutherans asked that question:

Quote:

---

Moreover, even supposing that the saints pray for the Church ever so much, 10 yet it does not follow that they are to be invoked; although our Confession affirms only this, that Scripture does not teach the invocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid. But since neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can be produced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, it follows that conscience can have nothing concerning this invocation that is certain. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how do we know that God approves this invocation? Whence do we know without the testimony of Scripture that the saints perceive the prayers of each one?

Nothing can be produced by the adversaries against this reasoning, that, since invocation does not have a testimony from God's Word, it cannot be affirmed that the saints understand our invocation, or, even if they understand it, that God approves it.


(Source: https://bookofconcord.org/defense/of-the-invocation-of-saints/ )

---

-------------------------

And that becomes the difference. If we have no way of knowing whether Mary can hear us, nor whether God even approves of such behavior.
-------------------------------

To get ahead of the standard response from Rome, yes the Saints and Mary are alive in Christ. Part of a living Church, but that doesn't answer the question.

If I, at my desk right now in Texas, silently ask someone to pray from me, who is in another country, state, even building (ie. I do not actively reach out to them), I should not have any expectation that they heard me.
-----------------------

So your example becomes apples to oranges because we do not have a reasonable belief that Mary (or other Saints) actively hear every individual prayer made to them.

---

Is there a verse in Revelation where it says that the prayers of the faithful rise like incense to people on earth, or Saints in Heaven?

Everything you have mentioned above is the personal opinion of the Lutherans, which for you has become the truth. Rather than the successor of Peter and the Apostles, you have made some dudes you agree with the arbiter of what is truth; 1500 years after the founding of the Church, against centuries upon centuries of the witness of the Church.

---

Lol...The irony of making a claim about the pope that a significant portion of the church has rejected as proof that you're right.

---

I think your and I definition of the "church" would prove quite different.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What is different about asking me to pray for you (obviously ok) and asking the Theotokos to pray for you (obviously ok in my book, categorically different in yours)? I don't understand the difference, so to me one is as obvious as the other. What is the difference?

---

This is the most common response, but I've come to believe it falls flat.

This is what you are essentially claiming (please correct if I misunderstand it).

I reach out to you via some physical/personal medium (I talk to you on the phone, in-person, I text/email and you acknowledge, etc) and you respond by praying for me.

I reach out to Mary and ask her to pray for me (whether spoken outload, or in my mind, or written down, etc.), she hears this prayer and prays for me.

That's the comparison I think you want us to make.
-----------------

The challenge the Reformers, and frankly anybody should have is do we have any reason to believe that Mary, or any Saint, can hear these prayers?

The Lutherans asked that question:

Quote:

---

Moreover, even supposing that the saints pray for the Church ever so much, 10 yet it does not follow that they are to be invoked; although our Confession affirms only this, that Scripture does not teach the invocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid. But since neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can be produced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, it follows that conscience can have nothing concerning this invocation that is certain. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how do we know that God approves this invocation? Whence do we know without the testimony of Scripture that the saints perceive the prayers of each one?

Nothing can be produced by the adversaries against this reasoning, that, since invocation does not have a testimony from God's Word, it cannot be affirmed that the saints understand our invocation, or, even if they understand it, that God approves it.


(Source: https://bookofconcord.org/defense/of-the-invocation-of-saints/ )

---

-------------------------

And that becomes the difference. If we have no way of knowing whether Mary can hear us, nor whether God even approves of such behavior.
-------------------------------

To get ahead of the standard response from Rome, yes the Saints and Mary are alive in Christ. Part of a living Church, but that doesn't answer the question.

If I, at my desk right now in Texas, silently ask someone to pray from me, who is in another country, state, even building (ie. I do not actively reach out to them), I should not have any expectation that they heard me.
-----------------------

So your example becomes apples to oranges because we do not have a reasonable belief that Mary (or other Saints) actively hear every individual prayer made to them.

---

Is there a verse in Revelation where it says that the prayers of the faithful rise like incense to people on earth, or Saints in Heaven?

Everything you have mentioned above is the personal opinion of the Lutherans, which for you has become the truth. Rather than the successor of Peter and the Apostles, you have made some dudes you agree with the arbiter of what is truth; 1500 years after the founding of the Church, against centuries upon centuries of the witness of the Church.

---

Lol...The irony of making a claim about the pope that a significant portion of the church has rejected as proof that you're right.

---

I think your and I definition of the "church" would prove quite different.

---

Church Triumphant... Church Suffering... Church Militant...

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Maximus Johnson said:

---

Jesus alone bridges the gap between God and humanity
He does so because He is:
Fully God
Fully man
No angel, saint, priest, or pastor replaces or competes with this role

This is grounded in:
His incarnation ("the man Christ Jesus")
His atoning sacrifice ("ransom for all")

---

Can you show me where it says in scripture that he's fully man and fully God? No inferences, verbatim.

You're quoting the council of Chalcedon which isn't in the Bible

---

What are you trying to claim? We can't know from scripture that Jesus was fully God and fully man?

Is the argument that without the council we couldn't have known that?

---

Can you show me from scripture where it says he was fully God and fully man? Can you explain why there was enough questioning behind it that necessitated Chalcedon? Was 450 still in the good original Protestant period or had the ***** of Rome taken over yet?

---

Yes? Via the same methods that they used at Chalcedon (and Ephesus, Nicaea, and Constantinople).

But I think you actually misunderstand what the council was addressing.

Can you articulate what you think was being debated?

---

You're missing the point. Why did this need to be discussed in council if it's so plain upon reading the bible? You act as if people can come to different interpretations of biblical passages, but that would necessitate an external arbiter of truth, unless your point is that God is the author of confusion, truth depends on the individual and that is is the will of the Almighty that his flock be confused and fractured amongst myriad different interpretations.

LIke most councils, Chalcedon was called to clear confusion caused by heretical views of the economy of Christ's humanity and divinity. Nestorians (through their personal interpretation of scripture) were arguing that Christ's humanity and divinity were entirely separate while the people who's name looks like Eunuch (I can't remember off the top of my head) said they were mixed together uniformly in a singular nature.

---

I'm not missing the point. I'm also not willing to accept the strawman you've made.

But your statement is also incorrect. Rome isn't claiming don't just "necessitate an external arbiter of truth." You claim this "arbiter" is infallible and specifically the pope.

I quite literally subscribe to the Book of Concord which, since I didn't write, means I defer at least part of my beliefs to an external arbiter. But neither I, nor those very writers claim any sort of infallibility.

---

I have good news for you, whatever the Book of Concord is, it is absolutely not infallible.

Despite your many years of study and the books you've written I can't believe you still don't understand the mechanism of infallibility. The Pope is not infallible. The Church is infallible. In his role as the Vicar of Christ, he speaks with the authority of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. When Christ comes back, the Pope will have literally zero authority. Christ is the High Priest, the Pope is looking after the Kingdom until the King's return.

I did a quick google search of the Book of Concord, I absolutely abhor google-fu during discussions, but I had no clue what it was, and it says it's the symbolic book of the ELCA, who ordains gay clergy and blesses gay marriages; so yes, definitely not infallible.

---

Gotcha. You're not here for serious discussion.

Have a good day!

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Maximus Johnson said:

---

Jesus alone bridges the gap between God and humanity
He does so because He is:
Fully God
Fully man
No angel, saint, priest, or pastor replaces or competes with this role

This is grounded in:
His incarnation ("the man Christ Jesus")
His atoning sacrifice ("ransom for all")

---

Can you show me where it says in scripture that he's fully man and fully God? No inferences, verbatim.

You're quoting the council of Chalcedon which isn't in the Bible

---

What are you trying to claim? We can't know from scripture that Jesus was fully God and fully man?

Is the argument that without the council we couldn't have known that?

---

Can you show me from scripture where it says he was fully God and fully man? Can you explain why there was enough questioning behind it that necessitated Chalcedon? Was 450 still in the good original Protestant period or had the ***** of Rome taken over yet?

---

Yes? Via the same methods that they used at Chalcedon (and Ephesus, Nicaea, and Constantinople).

But I think you actually misunderstand what the council was addressing.

Can you articulate what you think was being debated?

---

You're missing the point. Why did this need to be discussed in council if it's so plain upon reading the bible? You act as if people can come to different interpretations of biblical passages, but that would necessitate an external arbiter of truth, unless your point is that God is the author of confusion, truth depends on the individual and that is is the will of the Almighty that his flock be confused and fractured amongst myriad different interpretations.

LIke most councils, Chalcedon was called to clear confusion caused by heretical views of the economy of Christ's humanity and divinity. Nestorians (through their personal interpretation of scripture) were arguing that Christ's humanity and divinity were entirely separate while the people who's name looks like Eunuch (I can't remember off the top of my head) said they were mixed together uniformly in a singular nature.

---

I'm not missing the point. I'm also not willing to accept the strawman you've made.

But your statement is also incorrect. Rome isn't claiming don't just "necessitate an external arbiter of truth." You claim this "arbiter" is infallible and specifically the pope.

I quite literally subscribe to the Book of Concord which, since I didn't write, means I defer at least part of my beliefs to an external arbiter. But neither I, nor those very writers claim any sort of infallibility.

---

I have good news for you, whatever the Book of Concord is, it is absolutely not infallible.

Despite your many years of study and the books you've written I can't believe you still don't understand the mechanism of infallibility. The Pope is not infallible. The Church is infallible. In his role as the Vicar of Christ, he speaks with the authority of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. When Christ comes back, the Pope will have literally zero authority. Christ is the High Priest, the Pope is looking after the Kingdom until the King's return.

I did a quick google search of the Book of Concord, I absolutely abhor google-fu during discussions, but I had no clue what it was, and it says it's the symbolic book of the ELCA, who ordains gay clergy and blesses gay marriages; so yes, definitely not infallible.

---

Gotcha. You're not here for serious discussion.

Have a good day!

---

I'm sorry, can you show me where what I said was wrong? You've put up such a good fight recently, it's weird to have the surrender cobra shown now.

AgLiving06 said:

---

So your example becomes apples to oranges because we do not have a reasonable belief that Mary (or other Saints) actively hear every individual prayer made to them.

---

What more "reasonable belief" do you need than the countless miracles that have occurred? The entire process of canonization requires the verification of 3 separate miracles, i.e. an event or healing that can not be explained by activity and actions within the physical world.

The first step of the process is being declared venerable meaning that an individual lived a life and died in a state of grace that would suggest being accepted into heaven. They way they are proven to be in heaven is by 3 separate miracles. One must be in the presence of God for intercession just as Mary was in the presence of Christ for the first miracle at the Wedding of Cana.

If you are genuinely curious and want a present day example, look at the recent canonization process of now St. Carlo Acutis. There are a multiple of videos on YouTube documenting the depth that went into confirming those miracles. It is critical in making a claim that only metaphysical force could have to account for the events. To be clear, God heals in response to a righteous person's prayer just as Jesus turned water into wine following Mary's appeal. Mary and the saints don't do anything but join their prayer with ours. "Where 2 or more are gathered in my name…."

Maximus Johnson said:

---

How is this not idolatry?

---

I don't know where the beetles came from yet it sure is a beautiful painting.
On the issue of idolatry, first look to two passages in the bible that I find helpful in addressing this with loving christians that have no history with honoring Mary.
The first is Exodus 20:12 where we learn it is the God's will and commandment that we honor both our father and our mother. The word honor in Hebrew actually means for us to "bestow glory". The second passage comes from 1 Corinthians 11:1 where Paul asks us to imitate him as he imitates Christ. Can you imagine the depth of Christ's love for his Father. In honoring his Father we as Christians have no trouble imitating Jesus and bestowing glory on God the Father. Yet we stop there and ignore the love he has for his Mother. Somehow we consider that any attention we bestow on his Mother somehow competes with love we give Jesus. When we honor His Mother, we are imitating the love he has for His Mother, and I can only imagine that that would give Him great joy!
So the next question is more of an invitation, how can I love His Mother like Christ loved His Mother, what does that look like for me, and then ask Him to lead the way and introduce you to the love He has for His Mother Mary.

The painting is AI

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Would be interested to learn the "orthodox" interpretation on Matthew 12:46-50

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

I think this got buried but would still be interested in the "orthodox" interpretation and application here. Genuinely interested.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Would be interested to learn the "orthodox" interpretation on Matthew 12:46-50

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

I think this got buried but would still be interested in the "orthodox" interpretation and application here. Genuinely interested.

---

Brothers also means cousins. If you cross reference the accounts of the crucifixion in Matthew 27, with John 19 you'll see that they mention that two of the people called "brothers" are the children of Mary (other mary) and Cleopas (St.Joseph's brother) : they're his cousins.

Since we are bringing up reformers, both Luther and I believe Calvin held to the perpetual virginity belief

10andBOUNCE said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Would be interested to learn the "orthodox" interpretation on Matthew 12:46-50

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

I think this got buried but would still be interested in the "orthodox" interpretation and application here. Genuinely interested.

---

Not only do we know this verse, we read this in church on the feast days of the Mother of God.

So - just curious - did Mary the Theotokos do the will of the Father?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Would be interested to learn the "orthodox" interpretation on Matthew 12:46-50

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

I think this got buried but would still be interested in the "orthodox" interpretation and application here. Genuinely interested.

---

If you look at the fathers who wrote on this, you'll see that they are showing how this passage is saying that those who do God's will are Jesus' true kin. Mary clearly did God's will, so she isn't being downgraded here.

And yet we are told to pray for each other. Why?

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Would be interested to learn the "orthodox" interpretation on Matthew 12:46-50

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

I think this got buried but would still be interested in the "orthodox" interpretation and application here. Genuinely interested.

---

If you look at the fathers who wrote on this, you'll see that they are showing how this passage is saying that those who do God's will are Jesus' true kin. Mary clearly did God's will, so she isn't being downgraded here.

---

Thanks, I do not look to try and downgrade Mary. That was not my intent in asking or setting up another question.

If you pray to Mary and she then prays to God on behalf of you that is one prayer in Gods ear

If you pray for yourself and I also pray for you that is 2 prayers in Gods ear.

There is no need for a mediator. God sent his son down to earth to relieve us from our sins and to carry the burden of them for us. You have access to THAT. A direct line to him. Jesus Christ himself, the one who sits directly at the right hand of the father, yet you choose to pray to saints, Mary, and whatever other man the head of your institution chooses to sanctify.

I will never understand it.