Evidence for God from Science

Bippy: When Catholics say we are praying to God and praying to saints we are talking about qualitatively different things as different as a monkey is to a man. The Protestant generally only has one species in mind when he thinks of prayer—prayer to God that necessarily includes adoration. But one need only pick up a dictionary to discover there are in truth different definitions and therefore different usages of the same word in English.

Prayer:

The act or practice of praying.

An earnest request; entreaty; supplication
(a) humble entreaty addressed to God, to a god, etc.:
(b) a request made to God, etc.; as, her prayer for his safe return;
(c) any set formula for praying, as to God.

But WHY would anyone do any of the above? And where are such examples of this to be found in the New Testament, or instructions to do so? And if Christ is the ONLY mediator between God and man - and as He is also God/knows ALL about EVERYTHING and EVERY need, does He really need someone to remind HIm or implore Him to help in anyone's earthly situations - things that He has ALWAYS known about in minute detail? The saints of Heaven have NO power. And we don't even know for certain that they can even hear our prayers (ok, supplications, entreaties - whatever). And IF Catholic teachings about this are actually being misinterpreted by countless Catholics, why would CC writings be so suggestive that these are actual prayers?

Essential Sacrifice: Rick, here's some, not all of the Dogma towards the Marian doctrine. She is always beneath Christ.

Irrelevant - Jesus needs no "Co-Redeemtrix!"

Essential Sacrifice: Any prayers said to her are meant only to be heightened by her to the ends of strengthening that prayer to her Son.

So God cannot clearly hear our prayers? But the Saints CAN? You see, this suggests that what God hears and knows is somehow not as optimum as it might be - or needs to be - that God needs the clarification of one of His created beings to have a better grasp on what is being prayed for. Or He puts more value on the prayers or supplications of one saint (ALL Christians are saints, per Scripture) over another one?

Essential Sacrifice: She is, perhaps best defined as a holy conduit with extra validity and discernment by her special relationship to the Triune God.

Again, so our all-knowing God pays more attention to Mary's prayers than our own? Where in Scripture is THAT? HUGE hint: It's NOT!!! NOwhere in Scripture is Mary elevated as per Catholic doctrine - doctrine which, by the way, was made up centuries after the New Testament era.

Essential Sacrifice: This was fore told biblically when Mary and Joseph met Simeon at the temple for His presentation: Luke 2: 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

This says absolutely nothing about Mary's future ability to strengthen prayers or more effective supplications! It's reading into the text per CC dogma - the traditions of man-written religious teachings!

Essential Sacrifice: Mother relationship to us and between us and God. It is difficult to see what very much appears like prayer incongruous to God being directed to Mary, but it exists ... she is always subordinate to God..

All of what you asserting is that there is more than one mediator between us - that Jesus PLUS Mary is more effective than Jesus alone. It is saying God/Jesus is less knowledgeable/less effective without Mary's input, with regard to our prayers. This is nothing more than religion at its "finest!" It's unScriptural, and not one Apostle taught or demonstrated such a practice. But people will often believe anything that comes from the Pope or official CC doctrine. But when it contradicts the Scriptures? Who are you going to follow - the teachings of God or man?

There are a few things in the RC religion that are not biblical.
They are based on the tradition of the Church, not the bible per say.

Examination of CC teachings about Mary: http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?ti ... ow_Mary%3f

The Papacy:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 2W1100.pdf

Peter the First Pope?:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 3W1004.pdf

Decide for yourself!

Storyteller wrote:Have started this here so we don`t totally derail Bippy`s thread!

I have no particular denomination, I am still exploring.

I have chatted with a Catholic and I really like some of the ideas behind it. I am NOT saying that Mary is somehow "above" God or Christ. All I am saying is that through Her I relate better to Christ. I like the mysteries, they are NOT a substitute for prayer and I don`t find them repetitive, they are more of a reflection on my feelings. Most of them are backed up scripturally (there is a link, will look it out) and that I like the idea of having a Rosary.

I am interested in the history of the Catholic church, but I am interested in a lot of other things too, I like finding out about stuff and I honestly believe that the Holy Spirit will guide me in the right direction.

I find the Mysteries easier to relate to, and to feel than the Bible at the moment and I am discovering that the Mysteries help me understand the Bible better.

Yes, I am happy to acknowledge Mary, and to offer Her my thanks, She is not a substitute for God. Or Christ.

I have been led this far.

I trust God.

Hi there Storyteller

I have yet to catch up on all the replies given to you so far so I hope I am not being repetitive. The Catholic Church has much history that Popes have apologized for. Having said that I don't think there is any religion that can rightfully claim it is squeaky clean. Here is a link to Wiki which you have likely already seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... lic_Church

I am a baptized Catholic but currently attend an Anglican church. I went back to the Catholic church for a month recently but found I wanted to go back to the Anglican church. I think God can lead us to any faith. In my opinion the various Christian faiths are a means to an end, pleasing God more each day, rather than an end to a means, this way or the highway to hell or damnation. I don't even believe one has to attend a church. I do so for added Christian fellowship and spiritual support. I'd like to see current forms of worship change from the traditional and would gladly join such a congregation if I knew of any close by. I have fairly strong views around this.

The bible writers suggest we pray for one another. Catholics believe that our departed brothers and sisters recent and past can hear our requests for prayer as they have ascended to heaven and can pray to God for us as we do for each other. I don't know if that is true or not and no one can say for sure either way. All we can do is offer our opinion on it and quote mine scriptures to support our individual view.

God has to forgive much ignorance. If He doesn't then heavenly souls will be scant. You certainly sound like you want to draw closer to God and are well on your way in your Christian journey. I think we all mature spiritually and can change our views over time.

Take care and may Gods' guiding spirit guide you to please him more and more each day.

PaulSacramento wrote:There are a few things in the RC religion that are not biblical.
They are based on the tradition of the Church, not the bible per say.

So far I have no knowledge of any religion that 'gets it right' according to me. For starters the apostles met in peoples homes not 'churches'. "Churches', per Se, are not biblical.

Can you or someone else name a faith that is totally 'biblical'?

But WHY would anyone do any of the above? And where are such examples of this to be found in the New Testament, or instructions to do so? And if Christ is the ONLY mediator between God and man - and as He is also God/knows ALL about EVERYTHING and EVERY need, does He really need someone to remind HIm or implore Him to help in anyone's earthly situations - things that He has ALWAYS known about in minute detail? The saints of Heaven have NO power. And we don't even know for certain that they can even hear our prayers (ok, supplications, entreaties - whatever). And IF Catholic teachings about this are actually being misinterpreted by countless Catholics, why would CC writings be so suggestive that these are actual prayers?""

Philip in revelations it even talks about the angels carrying prayers to God's throne . As for not needing the angels and saints in heaven, I agree , so from now on we don't need to ask for anyone to pray for us right ?

Does it also not say in the New Testament that the prayers of the righteous carry greater weight with God ?
Philip , who is more righteous us sinners here on earth , or the angels and saints in heaven who are without sin?
Clearly the beings in heaven as nothing with sin can exist in heaven .

It's clearly biblical in every way

Of course it's not spelled out but neither is the doctrine of the trinity which wasn't clearly defined until the 4th century .

bippy123 wrote: Philip in revelations it even talks about the angels carrying prayers to God's throne . As for not needing the angels and saints in heaven, I agree , so from now on we don't need to ask for anyone to pray for us right ?.

Perhaps we don't 'NEED" to ask for others prayers to achieve salvation, but that does not mean we can't ask someone to pray for us if we feel the need.

No one knows for sure if anyone other than God in heaven can hear us or even if anyone apart from Jesus has even risen.

Philip wrote:Examination of CC teachings about Mary: http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?ti ... ow_Mary%3f

The Papacy:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 2W1100.pdf

Peter the First Pope?:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 3W1004.pdf

Decide for yourself!

RE Peter:
I simply state this:

John 21:15-17

The Love Motivation
15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16 He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17 He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.

To no one else did Jesus say:
Shepard my sheep, Tend my lambs, Tend my sheep.

As for the Matthew passage, I agree that "upon this Rock" did not have anything to do with Peter.
I believe it had to do with the location where they were standing was My Hermon where, according to some, the fallen angels fell.

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There are a few things in the RC religion that are not biblical.
They are based on the tradition of the Church, not the bible per say.

So far I have no knowledge of any religion that 'gets it right' according to me. For starters the apostles met in peoples homes not 'churches'. "Churches', per Se, are not biblical.

Can you or someone else name a faith that is totally 'biblical'?

Nope.

PaulSacramento wrote: The Love Motivation
15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16 He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17 He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.

To no one else did Jesus say:
Shepard my sheep, Tend my lambs, Tend my sheep.

I always took this to mean that Jesus was reinstating Peter to make him feel better about his three denials. Of course, Jesus had already forgiven Peter, this was just to ease his guilt and to let him know he was forgiven and that Jesus was still going to use him in ministry despite the betrayal.

Three denails, three affirmations. Did it need to be three? No, I don't think so. I think the whole thing was for Peter's peace of mind.

Rob wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: The Love Motivation
15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16 He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17 He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.

To no one else did Jesus say:
Shepard my sheep, Tend my lambs, Tend my sheep.

I always took this to mean that Jesus was reinstating Peter to make him feel better about his three denials. Of course, Jesus had already forgiven Peter, this was just to ease his guilt and to let him know he was forgiven and that Jesus was still going to use him in ministry despite the betrayal.

Three denails, three affirmations. Did it need to be three? No, I don't think so. I think the whole thing was for Peter's peace of mind.

Oh yes of course BUT we can't overlook that Jesus asks Peter to be the shepherd to His sheep.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There are a few things in the RC religion that are not biblical.
They are based on the tradition of the Church, not the bible per say.

So far I have no knowledge of any religion that 'gets it right' according to me. For starters the apostles met in peoples homes not 'churches'. "Churches', per Se, are not biblical.

Can you or someone else name a faith that is totally 'biblical'?

Nope.

I think what I am getting at is that we can always challenge another's views and use scripture to do so. The apostles got it wrong as stated by Jesus. We don't have to be better. There is nothing in the bible that says "thou shalt be saved if you interpret every scripture and doctrine 100% correctly".

Pope Francis would like to change allot within the CC. He is being challenged by the traditionalists. I admire Pope Francis. If he changes the nonsense around having to be married in the Catholic church to receive communion he'd get me back in the Catholic pews, despite my views on praying to Mary. My view is that the Catholic faith is the original faith that traces back to the first century. I would love to go back home.

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There are a few things in the RC religion that are not biblical.
They are based on the tradition of the Church, not the bible per say.

So far I have no knowledge of any religion that 'gets it right' according to me. For starters the apostles met in peoples homes not 'churches'. "Churches', per Se, are not biblical.

Can you or someone else name a faith that is totally 'biblical'?

Nope.

I think what I am getting at is that we can always challenge another's views and use scripture to do so. The apostles got it wrong as stated by Jesus. We don't have to be better. There is nothing in the bible that says "thou shalt be saved if you interpret every scripture and doctrine 100% correctly".

Pope Francis would like to change allot within the CC. He is being challenged by the traditionalists. I admire Pope Francis. If he changes the nonsense around having to be married in the Catholic church to receive communion he'd get me back in the Catholic pews, despite my views on praying to Mary. My view is that the Catholic faith is the original faith that traces back to the first century. I would love to go back home.

Salvation is only possible by belief in Christ.
None of the major denominations state otherwise.
I have issues when a denomination inserts ANYTHING into the baptismal rite ( it should only state Father, Son and HS).
I have issues when a denomination inserts ANYONE or ANYTHING between Christ and a believer.

There is ONE path to God: Christ
There is ONE mediator between man and God: Christ
There is salvation under only ONE name: Christ

Essential Sacrifice: Rick, here's some, not all of the Dogma towards the Marian doctrine. She is always beneath Christ.

Irrelevant - Jesus needs no "Co-Redeemtrix

God requires nothing, so instead of looking at His needs, of which He has none, perhaps look at what He desires of which He has billions and billions... many for each one of us here, to be there asap. Mary furthers that with her strength of prayer added to our own.


Essential Sacrifice: Any prayers said to her are meant only to be heightened by her to the ends of strengthening that prayer to her Son.

So God cannot clearly hear our prayers? But the Saints CAN? You see, this suggests that what God hears and knows is somehow not as optimum as it might be - or needs to be - that God needs the clarification of one of His created beings to have a better grasp on what is being prayed for. Or He puts more value on the prayers or supplications of one saint (ALL Christians are saints, per Scripture) over another one?

None of this is what I said or meant Philip. It really is your conjecture of what is written, not anyone else's. Remember, when any two of you get together, there I will be. One prayer from earth in harmony with Mary's prayer in heaven constitute a wonderful relationship of preheavenly (us) saint and The Saintly Mary.

Essential Sacrifice: She is, perhaps best defined as a holy conduit with extra validity and discernment by her special relationship to the Triune God.

Again, so our all-knowing God pays more attention to Mary's prayers than our own? Where in Scripture is THAT? HUGE hint: It's NOT!!! NOwhere in Scripture is Mary elevated as per Catholic doctrine - doctrine which, by the way, was made up centuries after the New Testament era.

Again, this is your interpretation of God's abilities. He is limitless, and your limitations of His Being is showing with Scripture only references. Nowhere in scripture is Mary elevated as per Catholic doctrine? ... Luke 1:28, tell me where God has ever presented such a glorious exaltation of a human as this. Elevated indeed my friend, beyond the scope of human imagination. I'm glad I can imagine the unimaginable, if only a segment of her favor in God's eye.

Essential Sacrifice: Mother relationship to us and between us and God. It is difficult to see what very much appears like prayer incongruous to God being directed to Mary, but it exists ... she is always subordinate to God..

All of what you asserting is that there is more than one mediator between us - that Jesus PLUS Mary is more effective than Jesus alone. It is saying God/Jesus is less knowledgeable/less effective without Mary's input, with regard to our prayers. This is nothing more than religion at its "finest!" It's unScriptural, and not one Apostle taught or demonstrated such a practice. But people will often believe anything that comes from the Pope or official CC doctrine. But when it contradicts the Scriptures? Who are you going to follow - the teachings of God or man?

Luke 2: 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

Apparently Philip, this was considered long before it happened and your assessment, IMO, is folly. God knew Mary's role before the beginning of time, was perfected and refined during her lifetime and continues to this day in heaven ...

By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.(17*)

If belief is not in you, it is not. But I would be hard pressed to ever think I knew what God thinks or is capable of and leave all options on the table. But that's just me

I always took this to mean that Jesus was reinstating Peter to make him feel better about his three denials. Of course, Jesus had already forgiven Peter, this was just to ease his guilt and to let him know he was forgiven and that Jesus was still going to use him in ministry despite the betrayal.

Three denails, three affirmations. Did it need to be three? No, I don't think so. I think the whole thing was for Peter's peace of mind.

Really like this Rob, what it says and how it "fits" You just can't go wrong when there's love and forgiveness involved.