Aren't the saints in heaven experiencing glory now?

As God?

Good. Because I never did.



So you think that His glorified state is of no significance? You think that when Jesus humbled Himself to give up His glory as God, that meant nothing?

I think that if talking to dead-in-the-flesh saints (to borrow Wondergirl's expression) was good enough for Christ (glorified or otherwise) then it ought to be good enough for us. I think that Christ led an exemplary life, and so we are to take him as our example in all things and imitate him in our lives. Christ talked to dead-in-the-flesh saints. Why don't you?

You meant like claiming to be God? Claiming to have the name above all names? Claiming to be the "I AM"?
How cleverly you misunderstand.

As God?
Did I say that?

How cleverly you misunderstand.

I understood perfectly. It is clear that there is differences between us and Jesus, and ignoring those differences will lead us into error not truth.

I note that you are still avoiding my questions. Perhaps they were two uncomfortable for you. I understand.

I think that if talking to dead-in-the-flesh saints (to borrow Wondergirl's expression) was good enough for Christ (glorified or otherwise) then it ought to be good enough for us. I think that Christ led an exemplary life, and so we are to take him as our example in all things and imitate him in our lives. Christ talked to dead-in-the-flesh saints. Why don't you?

I note that you completely avoided my question. I understand why.

sndbay,
Yes, (That in all things being spoken we are edifying faith in Christ. )
Fred

I understood perfectly. It is clear that there is differences between us and Jesus, and ignoring those differences will lead us into error not truth.
The imitation of Christ misunderstanding.


I note that you are still avoiding my questions. Perhaps they were two uncomfortable for you. I understand.
You're darn good at it too. I also understand.

You meant like claiming to be God? Claiming to have the name above all names? Claiming to be the "I AM"?

No. That would be blasphemy. Christ didn't blaspheme and so neither should we.

Are you taking the position that you would rather adhere to the letter of the Law (as you understand it) than do as your Savior has done?

No. That would be blasphemy. Christ didn't blaspheme and so neither should we.

So there are things that Jesus did that we are not to do, nor able to do.

We agree.

The imitation of Christ misunderstanding.

You're darn good at it too. I also understand.

Cannot avoid personal cracks, can you. Is this thread doomed to go down the abuse road like so many others, or can we keep it on topic?

Are you planning to answer my questions or continue to avoid them?

So there are things that Jesus did that we are not to do, nor able to do.

We agree.

If we are unable to do something that Christ did, then the question of imitating him in those ways is obviously off the table.

But we are to imitate Christ wherever we can. Christ didn't blaspheme and so neither should we. Christ didn't lie, and so neither should we. It would be a lie for me to say that I cam God, etc. since I am not.

Christ spoke to the dead-in-the-flesh saints. Why don't you?

Cannot avoid personal cracks, can you. Is this thread doomed to go down the abuse road like so many others, or can we keep it on topic?
I was merely echoing you.

I was merely echoing you.

No, I was asking about your avoidance of my question - that was referring to your apparently refusal to answer them. You then took a personal crack at me.

Once again, are you able to stay on track, or should this thread be shut down before it degenerates further?

You made a big deal when you THOUGHT that I had not answered your questions because you missed what I had already posted, but when I ask you to answer mine, you cannot afford me the same courtesy.

No, I was asking about your avoidance of my question - that was referring to your apparently refusal to answer them. You then took a personal crack at me.
You had said, "I note that you are still avoiding my questions. Perhaps they were two uncomfortable for you. I understand." so I responded in kind, "You're darn good at it too. I also understand."

No, I was asking about your avoidance of my question - that was referring to your apparently refusal to answer them. You then took a personal crack at me.

Once again, are you able to stay on track, or should this thread be shut down before it degenerates further?

You made a big deal when you THOUGHT that I had not answered your questions because you missed what I had already posted, but when I ask you to answer mine, you cannot afford me the same courtesy.

How about if you answer the question I've asked you several times?

Jesus, as a living human being, spoke to dead-in-the-flesh saints. You do not. Why do you prefer to adhere to the letter of the Law (as you understand it) than to imitate Christ and follow him in his ways?

Akoue
That is a good question.
Let me know if Tj3 ever answers it.
Fred

How about if you answer the question I've asked you several times?

I have answered each of your questions.


Jesus, as a living human being, spoke to dead-in-the-flesh saints.

When He figured transfigured into His glorified state as God.


You do not. Why do you prefer to adhere to the letter of the Law (as you understand it) than to imitate Christ and follow him in his ways?

So, you are asking me why I don't do what God says is an abomination, in favour of trying to exalt myself as God and imitate what belongs to God alone?

It is because God when He says that it is an abomination for us to speak to the dead in the flesh. If you believe that we should ignore God's word, then please show me where we are exhorted to speak to those who are dead in the flesh.

Tj3,
God never said that in Holy Scripture.
Your are misinterpreting that passage.
Fred

Tj3,
God never said that in Holy Scripture.
Your are misinterpreting that passage.
Fred

Never said what Fred?

BTW, the topic of this thread is "What Biblical Support is there for asking the saints to pray for us?"

So far none has been posted. If none can be found after 269 posts, then I think that says a great deal.

Never said what Fred?

BTW, the topic of this thread is "What Biblical Support is there for asking the saints to pray for us?"

So far none has been posted.
There's no explicit mention in the Bible of the Trinity either.

I doubted at the beginning of this thread. Upon reading this thread, I'm much closer to being convinced there is Biblical support for asking not only earthly but also heavenly saints for intercessory prayers.

There's no explicit mention in the Bible of the Trinity either.

The trinity is clearly spoken of from Genesis through to Revelation.

Nowhere do we find any promotion of speaking to the dead.

I have answered each of your questions.

Then I'm sure you'll be more than happy to copy your answer or indicate the post #.


When He figured transfigured into His glorified state as God.

And this changes what, exactly? It was a human being speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints. You have agreed that Christ did not cease being human on Mt. Tabor. When he rejoined the Apostles after the Transfiguration he certainly didn't caution them against speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints. So there is no reason to suppose that we are not to do likewise.


So, you are asking me why I don't do what God says is an abomination, in favour of trying to exalt myself as God and imitate what belongs to God alone?

I am asking you what I have asked you: Why do you prefer the letter of the Law (as you understand it) to the example set by your Savior? Do you have the same scruples about trimming your fore-locks (this too is said to be an abomination)? Do you have the same scruples about sitting in the same chair in which a menstruating woman has sat (this too is said to be an abomination)? Youo have chosen to be quite legalistic about this issue and I am interested to know why, why do you prefer the letter of the law (as you understand it... I say this because, like others, I think you have misunderstood Dt.18) to the example your Savior has set for you?

Nowhere does it say that what Christ did on Mt. Tabor, i.e. speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints "belongs to God alone". To suggest otherwise is to add to the Scripture what isn't contained therein.


It is because God when He says that it is an abomination for us to speak to the dead in the flesh.

See my above question: Why do you favor legalism over the example of your Savior and trust in him to keep his promises?

You seem to have a very un-Christian view of death. Christ conquered death. Death hadn't yet been conquered when Dt. Was written. The phenomenon of "deadness" as understood in Dt. Has been transformed by Christ. Why do you cling so doggedly to an un-Christian view of death? This is something I would have expected from an atheist, not from someone who so loudly professes to be a Christian.

The trinity is clearly spoken of from Genesis through to Revelation.

Nowhere do we find any promotion of speaking to the dead.

Please provide the verse citation. In what verse do we read that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three hypostases? Where does it say that they are homoousios? Shoot, what verse says that they are three Persons but one God? This is what the doctrine of the Trinity says. What verse of Scripture says this?

Then I'm sure you'll be more than happy to copy your answer or indicate the post #.

Why? I just answered again.


And this changes what, exactly? It was a human being speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints.

So do you deny that Jesus was both God and Man?

Do you say that being transfigured into His glorified state as God makes no difference?


I am asking you what I have asked you: Why do you prefer the letter of the Law (as you understand it) to the example set by your Savior?

Why do you mis-represent me? I never said that I did.

Are you telling us that Jesus did away with the law?

Or did he fulfill the law?

Does scripture tell us that we can do whatever we please? Or does it say that we are to abide by the spirit of the law?

I'd be most interested to hear your answers if you dare to answer my questions.



You seem to have a very un-Christian view of death. Christ conquered death. Death hadn't yet been conquered when Dt. Was written.

So do you say that the Bible erred when it says that God never changes?


The phenomenon of "deadness" as understood in Dt. Has been transformed by Christ. Why do you cling so doggedly to an un-Christian view of death? This is something I would have expected from an atheist, not from someone who so loudly professes to be a Christian.

I am disturbed to hear that you view scripture, and the understanding of death held by Christians throughout the centuries as "Un-Christian"

Please provide the verse citation. In what verse do we read that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three hypostases? Where does it say that they are homoousios? Shoot, what verse says that they are three Persons but one God? This is what the doctrine of the Trinity says. What verse of Scripture says this?

When you started that last time, I suggested that you start another thread because, as I am sure you know, studying the nature of God as presented from Genesis through to Revelation is something many books have been written to summarize.

But if you are suggesting that the trinity is not scriptural, that is a very interesting revelation in and of itself. Or maybe you just wish to distract from the topic at hand and the fact that nowhere in scripture is there any Biblical support for speaking to those who are dead in the flesh.

But if you are suggesting that the trinity is not scriptural, that is a very interesting revelation in and of itself. Or maybe you just wish to distract from the topic at hand.
I had used the word "explicit". There is no explicit statement in the Bible of Trinity. All understanding and explanation of Trinity-ness is by extrapolation.

I had used the word "explicit". There is no explicit statement in the Bible of Trinity. All understanding and explanation of Trinity-ness is by extrapolation.

The trinity is explicitly clear. And, I might add, nowhere does scripture says that the trinity is an "abomination".

Yet that is exactly the case with respect to the believe in speaking to the dead in the flesh.

Can we focus on the topic?

I note that you are still avoiding my questions.

Tj3,
I saw quite a bit here on that subject and I am now convinced that asking the saints to pray for us is OK.
To bad you could not see that evidence.
Of course I suspected that YOU would not see anything that goes against what you believe.
Fred

The trinity is explicitly clear.
But not explicitedly stated as such.

And so go the dead in the flesh who are now alive in spirit in heaven.

Tj3,
I saw quite a bit here on that subject and I am now convinced that asking the saints to pray for us id OK.
To bad you could not see that evidence.

Perhaps the quotes from scripture were in "white letter" font. :D


Of course I suspected that YOU would not see anything that goes against what you believe.

Always, the defense for unscriptural doctrine gets personal.

But not explicitedly stated as such.

If you have not studied what scriptural backup there is for the trinity, that is not an issue to be resolved in this thread.


And so go the dead in the flesh who are now alive in spirit in heaven.

But still dead in the flesh and God's word has not changed with respect to speaking to the dead in the flesh being an abomination.

So do you deny that Jesus was both God and Man?

Jesus was both man and God. Just as the Council of Ephesus said.


Do you say that being transfigured into His glorified state as God makes no difference?

I am saying that there no grounds, scriptural or otherwise, for thinking that his being transfigured makes a difference with respect to the issue of speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints.


Why do you mis-represent me? I never said that I did.

And yet you prefer to adhere to Dt.18.11, as you understand it, than to follow the example of your Savior. Are you a Judaizer?


Are you telling us that Jesus did away with the law?

Or did he fulfill the law?

In Mt. Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law. Hebrews 10.9 tells us that Jesus "abolished" it. Make of that what you wish.


Does scripture tell us that we can do whatever we please? Or does it say that we are to abide by the spirit of the law?

I'll go even farther. Scripture says that unless we obey God's law was cannot be saved.

But, since that's another topic, I'll just say that we are not permitted to do whatever we please. One of the things we are to do is to imitate Christ.


I'd be most interested to hear your answers if you dare to answer my questions.

It would seem that I "dare" (I still can't believe you say things like that. Very junior high school.) I'll be interested to see if in the time that it's taken me to compose this post you have answered my questions. Do you have scruples about trimming you forelocks (an abomination) or sharing a chair with a menstruating woman (also an abomination). Oh, and that verse, the one that tells is that the Persons of the Trinity are homoousios, hypostases. Maybe even one that talks about the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit. I bet you haven't.


So do you say that the Bible erred when it says that God never changes?

Nope, God doesn't change. He is outside of time. Change is a temporal process.


I am disturbed to hear that you view scripture, and the understanding of death held by Christians throughout the centuries as "Un-Christian"

Nope, just yours. In fact, you are WAY out of sync with most of Christian history on this one. Actually, not just this one, as I've pointed out many times before.

I note that you are still avoiding my questions.
Your questions had to do with my opinion. We are examining the Word of God here, not my opinion.

If you have not studied what scriptural backup there is for the trinity, that is not an issue to be resolved in this thread.

Actually, it is relevant to the present discussion. You claim that there is no Scriptural support for praying to the saints in heaven. De Maria and I have offered lots of Scripture. You seem to think that what would be required is a verse that explicitly says, "Pray to the saints in heaven". That there is no such verse does not show that this practice is prohibited, nor indeed that it isn't of great benefit.

There is not explicit affirmation in Scripture of the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine had to be inferred from a great many verses scattered throughout the Bible. So you seem to have a double-standard, since you are willing to accept the doctrine of the Trinity despite the absence of any explicit affirmation of that doctrine in Scripture.

As for what is and is not an abomination: De Maria and I have both explained our reasons for taking you to be guilty either of misrepresenting or just misunderstanding the prohibition of Dt.18.11. You claim to have lots of scholarly support for your view, but you've yet to share any of it with us. A great many translations of the verse to which you appeal render the Hebrew thus: "necromancy".

Moreover, you haven't acknowledged never having trimmed your beard or forelocks, so it appears that something's being said to be an abomination isn't sufficient to keep you from engaging in it. So why here? Do you avoid sharing a seat with a menstruating woman? Shall we canvass some of the other things that are said to be abominations?

Jesus was both man and God. Just as the Council of Ephesus said.

I am glad to see you agree. Jesus is the only one, so that is one difference between us and Him.


I am saying that there no grounds, scriptural or otherwise, for thinking that his being transfigured makes a difference with respect to the issue of speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints.

So you are saying that there was no purpose for Him being transfigured or giving up His glory as God before coming to earth in the flesh.

Clearly this is a point where we differ. I do not think that Jesus was into shock and awe entertainment, and there was a purpose for the transfiguration.



And yet you prefer to adhere to Dt.18.11, as you understand it, than to follow the example of your Savior. Are you a Judaizer?

Interesting position - trying to put Jesus in opposition to the law. Not a Biblical or Christian position, but I am interested to see you express it.

Here are a couple of verses which you may find disturb your theology:

Matt 5:17-18
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
NKJV

Rom 6:15-16
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16
NKJV

Because Christian are not under the law does not in any way give us licence to be lawless.


Hebrews 10.9 tells us that Jesus "abolished" it. Make of that what you wish.

I make of it that you are altering scripture:

Heb 10:8-10

8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
NKJV

This speaks to the fulfillment of the law not the abolishing of it.




But, since that's another topic, I'll just say that we are not permitted to do whatever we please. One of the things we are to do is to imitate Christ.


It would seem that I "dare" (I still can't believe you say things like that. Very junior high school.)

Using the English language is not, but certainly the playground like snipes that we see coming on here trying to demean others are.


Nope, God doesn't change. He is outside of time. Change is a temporal process.

Good - then why do you think that God now endorses what he previously said was an abomination?


Nope, just yours. In fact, you are WAY out of sync with most of Christian history on this one. Actually, not just this one, as I've pointed out many times before.

This is perhaps a topic you may wish to study a bit more.

Wondergirl,
Yes!!
Fred

Actually, it is relevant to the present discussion. You claim that there is no Scriptural support for praying to the saints in heaven.

Because none has been presented.


De Maria and I have offered lots of Scripture.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to copy and paste those scripture references here.


You seem to think that what would be required is a verse that explicitly says, "Pray to the saints in heaven".

As I have said many times, show me a passage which says it, or an example in scripture where we see an exhortation to pray to the dead, or an example of something praying to the dead.


That there is no such verse does not show that this practice is prohibited, nor indeed that it isn't of great benefit.

I am sorry that your Bible omits so much.


There is not explicit affirmation in Scripture of the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine had to be inferred from a great many verses scattered throughout the Bible. So you seem to have a double-standard, since you are willing to accept the doctrine of the Trinity despite the absence of any explicit affirmation of that doctrine in Scripture.

Akoue, I suspect that you have not done a great deal of study for what scripture says about the trinity or I cannot see how you would be making so many comments opposing the Biblical basis for it.

I'd be convinced of your position if there was even 1% of the support for speaking to the dead that there is for the trinity. But so far there is not a single verse.


As for what is and is not an abomination: De Maria and I have both explained our reasons for taking you to be guilty either of misrepresenting or just misunderstanding the prohibition of Dt.18.11. You claim to have lots of scholarly support for your view, but you've yet to share any of it with us. A great many translations of the verse to which you appeal render the Hebrew thus: "necromancy".

Akoue, I am surprised that you would suggest that there is no scholarly support and then put forward a word which refers to the dead in the flesh.


Moreover, you haven't acknowledged never having trimmed your beard or forelocks, so it appears that something's being said to be an abomination isn't sufficient to keep you from engaging in it. So why here? Do you avoid sharing a seat with a menstruating woman? Shall we canvass some of the other things that are said to be abominations?

Akoue, this has been addressed so many times, but no doubt you will continue because you are struggling with support for your position.

If your position was so strong, surely we'd see the verses supporting it posted here and now!

Your questions had to do with my opinion. We are examining the Word of God here, not my opinion.

You asked my opinion many times, so it is good to see you admit that you will demand answers from others, but are unwilling to answer similar questions posed to you.

Tj3,
As I said there has been a lot of evidence presented here and that it is sad that you could not see it.
Fred

You asked my opinion many times, so it is good to see you admit that you will demand answers from others, but are unwilling to answer similar questions posed to you.
Please quote my asking for your opinion. I couldn't care less about your opinion. Your belief, your proof, yes. Your opinion, no.

I am glad to see you agree. Jesus is the only one, so that is one difference between us and Him.

There are lots of differences. That isn't the issue. You have yet to indicate a relevant difference. Jesus spoke to dead-in-the-flesh saints at the Transfiguration and you haven't given us any reason to suppose that we aren't to imitate him in this.


So you are saying that there was no purpose for Him being transfigured or giving up His glory as God before coming to earth in the flesh.

That's a rather dramatic non sequitur. I have said not that there was no purpose, but that there aren't any grounds, Scriptural or otherwise, for thinking that his speaking to them during the Transfiguration demonstrates that we are not to speak to them as well. This is your bias at work.


Clearly this is a point where we differ. I do not think that Jesus was into shock and awe entertainment, and there was a purpose for the transfiguration.

I believe there was a purpose. I suspect you haven't got the vaguest clue what that is, though. Be that as it may, it's not to the point. There is no indication that we are not to do as he has done by speaking to dead-in-the-flesh saints.


Interesting position - trying to put Jesus in opposition to the law. Not a Biblical or Christian position, but I am interested to see you express it.

Are you really as slow as you pretend, or are you purposefully caricaturing what I said? Never mind, don't answer that. You can whine about it later.


Here are a couple of verses which you may find disturb your theology:

I haven't espoused a theology on this topic. But you have. How long are your forelocks, Tom? You keep avoiding my questions, even as you've chastised Wondergirl for failing to answer yours. Do you avoid sitting where a menstruating woman has sat? That's an abomination too, you know.


Because Christian are not under the law does not in any way give us licence to be lawless.

So you are saying that we are not under the law?


I make of it that you are altering scripture:

Heb 10:8-10

8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
NKJV

This speaks to the fulfillment of the law not the abolishing of it.

I don't see the word "fulfill" in what you've quoted.


Using the English language is not, but certainly the playground like snipes that we see coming on here trying to demean others are.

I'm really glad to see you write that. Does this mean that you're going to stop doing it?


Good - then why do you think that God now endorses what he previously said was an abomination?

He doesn't. You have misrepresented Dt.18.11. It doesn't prohibit praying to saints. It prohibits necromancy.


This is perhaps a topic you may wish to study a bit more.

Some people may fall for this, but I actually have studied this very topic. That's how I know that you don't know what you're talking about. And this is, of course, why you have ever cited all the many scholars you claim agree with you--about this and a great many other topics. In fact, I seem to recall offering you a list of scholars--very well respected scholars, at that--who don't hold the view that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by Constantine. I seem also to recall you claiming that many scholars agree with you... And yet you've never offered a list of well-regarded scholars who take your view to be correct.

Would you like to reverse the trend and provide a bibliography in support of your claim?

There are lots of differences. That isn't the issue.

It is if you are claiming (as you did) that we are to do everything that Jesus did, even when He was transfigured into the glorified state as God.



I believe there was a purpose. I suspect you haven't got the vaguest clue what that is, though.

Like I said before, we are seeing the slow degradation into the abuse stage of this thread, just as has happened on there threads where your denomination's unique doctrine have been challenged from scripture.

Of course by using abuse to distract from the topic, you avoid the issue.


Are you really as slow as you pretend, or are you purposefully caricaturing what I said? Never mind, don't answer that. You can whine about it later.


More abuse I see.


I'm really glad to see you write that. Does this mean that you're going to stop doing it?

Now false accusations.

Really get your steam up again!


He doesn't. You have misrepresented Dt.18.11. It doesn't prohibit praying to saints. It prohibits necromancy.

You may wish to check what necromancy is before further comment heh heh!


Some people may fall for this, but I actually have studied this very topic.

Then please show us that you have a command of the topic rather than a talent for abuse and distraction.

Akoue,
Yes I agree, on this topic Tj3 does not know what he is talking about.
The saints ARE alive.
Fred

Akoue,
Yes I agree, on this topic Tj3 does not know what he is talking about.
The saints ARE alive.
Fred

When scripture fails to support your position, fall back on abuse.

It is if you are claiming (as you did) that we are to do everything that Jesus did, even when He was transfigured into the glorified state as God.
Slippery, slippery! You are not speaking to the point that was made about imitating Christ.

Slippery, slippery! You are not speaking to the point that was made about imitating Christ.

I did.I was quite specific.

Perhaps if, instead of a "commentary" if you would discuss (this is a discussion area) what was said, we could avoid the slippery slop into abuse that seems to have started with yourself and Akoue.

I did.I was quite specific.

Perhaps if, instead of a "commentary" if you would discuss (this is a discussion area) what was said, we could avoid the slippery slop into abuse that seems to have started with yourself and Akoue.
Slippery slop?? Lol

No, you totally avoided the term and its meaning.

Slippery slop???? lol

No, you totally avoided the term and its meaning.

What term?

Again, try to enter into respectful discussion.

What term? Again, try to enter into respectful discussion.
YOU said "slippery slop." I'm hoping that was a typo on your part.

term = imitation of Christ

YOU said "slippery slop." I'm hoping that was a typo on your part.

So we are into going after typos rather than dealing with the topic. Maybe you missed what I said about "discussing" the issue.


term = imitation of Christ

I addressed that in detail.

It is if you are claiming (as you did) that we are to do everything that Jesus did, even when He was transfigured into the glorified state as God.

Then by all means, prove that the fact of his being transfigured shows that we are not to speak to dead-in-the-flesh saints. You have made plenty of allusions, but that's it. There are manifold ways in which we simply haven't the capacity to imitate Christ. But where we do have the capacity, we are obligated to do so. But even more, we should want to imitate him. Why don't you? Are you so confident of your own salvation that you feel it is beneath you to endeavor, in every way you can, to imitate the ways of your Lord and Savior?

I still find it remarkably peculiar that you adhere to such an un-Christian view of death, one you have yet to vindicate (despite more ALLUSIONS to history). Christ conguered death and promised eternal life to his saints. You seem also to regard heaven as something very remote and alien. This is also very un-Christian. In fact, it is in some ways closer to certain forms of Islam.


Like I said before, we are seeing the slow degradation into the abuse stage of this thread, just as has happened on there threads where your denomination's unique doctrine have been challenged from scripture.

Of course by using abuse to distract from the topic, you avoid the issue.

More abuse I see.

Now false accusations.

You're a big boy. You can take it. Though you do whine like a little kid. (Just wanted to give you something else to complain about in your next post.)


You may wish to check what necromancy is before further comment heh heh!


Not quite sure what motivates the "heh heh!". It is perfectly obvious--even to one who doesn't favor prayer to the saints--that that practice is a world away from necromancy. It's also a practice that Christians have been engaging in since the first century, and which Christians have been encouraged by their bishops to engage in--again, since the first century. You and your crazy theological novelties.


Then please show us that you have a command of the topic rather than a talent for abuse and distraction.

Now you still haven't said anything about your beard and forelocks. Nor you have you told us whether you avoid sharing a seat with a menstruating woman. Should I quote you? "I understand why."

If you wish to follow your own very quixotic interpretation of Scripture your are free to do so. I certainly have no interest in trying to persuade you of anything. For my part, I will follow Christ and his ways.

Tj3,
You have proven to me that you do NOT know what you are talking about on this topic, so I'm through discussing it with you.
If others have more evidence about asking saints to pray for us I'm still interested, but you have had notheing to offer.
Fred

I addressed that in detail.

No, you really didn't.

Quoting Tom: "It's okay. I understand why."

Tj3,
You have proven to me that you do NOT know what you are talking about on this topic, so I'm through discussing it with you.

Fred,

If I have a dollar for each time that you said that you would stop discussing one thing or another with me, and then carried on, I'd be retired by now!


If others have more evidence about asking saints to pray for us I'm still interested, but you have had notheing to offer.

Because my source is scripture and there is nothing in scripture support speaking to the dead.

No, you really didn't.

Quoting Tom: "It's okay. I understand why."

Akoue, I am not surprised at your denial.

So we are into going after typos rather than dealing with the topic. Maybe you missed what I said about "discussing" the issue.
It was so droll... so... so... so you!

Then by all means, prove that the fact of his being transfigured shows that we are not to speak to dead-in-the-flesh saints.


Word twisting again, I see. I never said that. It was you using that incident as an attempt to claim that we should ignore the condemnation of speaking to the dead in favour of imitating what Jesus did in His transfigured state as God.

Nice try, but the onus is on you.


You have made plenty of allusions, but that's it. There are manifold ways in which we simply haven't the capacity to imitate Christ.

Tell me how to transfigure into God, and I'll concede that we can speak to the dead.



I still find it remarkably peculiar that you adhere to such an un-Christian view of death, one you have yet to vindicate (despite more ALLUSIONS to history). Christ conguered death and promised eternal life to his saints. You seem also to regard heaven as something very remote and alien. This is also very un-Christian. In fact, it is in some ways closer to certain forms of Islam.

Do you always find it necessary to abuse and mis-represent those who challenge you?



You're a big boy. You can take it. Though you do whine like a little kid. (Just wanted to give you something else to complain about in your next post.)

Expectations would also be that ALL of us on here - you included - behave maturely. That is what I ask of you. Do you feel that you are somehow permitted to be abusive? Is this what you mean by your unBiblical belief that Jesus "abolished" the law, so that you could behave however you wished?


Not quite sure what motivates the "heh heh!"

Because you don't appear to realize the irony. If you studied the topic regarding what necromancy is, you may catch on.



Now you still haven't said anything about your beard and forelocks. Nor you have you told us whether you avoid sharing a seat with a menstruating woman. Should I quote you? "I understand why."

More mis-representations. I guess if you have nothing else to offer...


For my part, I will follow Christ and his ways.

Glad to hear that you are abandoning speaking to the dead!

It was so droll...so...so...so you!

WG,

You keep forgetting that Tom alone dictates the terms of the discussion, and he alone is permitted to make dismissive and demeaning remarks about other posters. Now we've been over this again and again: Get with the program! This is Tom's sand-box. If you can't accommodate yourself to that, just pick up your toys and go play somewhere else. He's already threatened to shut down the thread, so either he is a secret moderator or he has reason to believe that the moderators will do as he demands. Of course, his position isn't faring very well and threads typically close when Tom's position doesn't fare very well.

It was so droll...so...so...so you!

Still missed that request for respectful discussion I see.

WG,

You keep forgetting that Tom alone dictates the terms of the discussion, and he alone is permitted to make dismissive and demeaning remarks about other posters. Now we've been over this again and again: Get with the program! This is Tom's sand-box. If you can't accommodate yourself to that, just pick up your toys and go play somewhere else. He's already threatened to shut down the thread, so either he is a secret moderator or he has reason to believe that the moderators will do as he demands. Of course, his position isn't faring very well and threads typically close when Tom's position doesn't fare very well.

Akoue,

I neither threatened to shut down the thread because of your abusive behaviour, or false accusations nor threatened anything else. I have no power or authority or influence to do so. But I would hope that someone who claims to be a professor would behave in a more mature manner than tossing about abuse more akin to children.

I note that my requests for respectful discussion are falling on deaf ears.

Tell me how to transfigure into God, and I'll concede that we can speak to the dead.

Whoa! So you really are confused about the Transfiguration. He didn't transfigure into God; he already was God.


Because you don't appear to realize the irony. If you studied the topic regarding what necromancy is, you may catch on.

Oh, but I have. I've even discussed it at length with Bill Newman (historian of science and leading scholar of the occult). That's how I know that your claims are without merit.

You still haven't demonstrated that praying to the saints in heaven constitutes speaking to the dead. You can repeat the claim all you like, but clearly it isn't persuading anyone.

Oh, and did I ever claim to speak to the dead? Or pray to saints in heaven, for that matter? You really shouldn't make assumptions.

Whoa! So you really are confused about the Transfiguration. He didn't transfigure into God; he already was God.

I am not confused. You did not read what I said.

That is correct that he was and is God. But we are not, so we would have to transfigure into God.

Slow down and read more carefully.

I note that you did not address the point that I actually raised.


Oh, but I have. I've even discussed it at length with Bill Newman (historian of science and leading scholar of the occult). That's how I know that your claims are without merit.

Of course you know that referring to some supposed conversation that may or may not have taken place with someone who you may not have met and with whom you may or not have had a conversation, and who may or may not have expressed and opinion on this topic which may or may not have been what you claim is about as weak of an argument as you can get.


You still haven't demonstrated that praying to the saints in heaven constitutes speaking to the dead.

So are you saying that those are in heaven have flesh?

I neither threatened to shut down the thread


Once again, are you able to stay on track, or should this thread be shut down before it degenerates further?



I note that my requests for respectful discussion are falling on deaf ears.

And what of my requests? You still haven't described your beard and forelocks. Nor have you told us whether you are willing to sit where a menstruating woman has sat. I hope not, since that's an abomination.

Maybe when I check in a day or two hence I'll find that you've answered my questions.

Closed

Of course you know that referring to some supposed conversation that may or may not have taken place with someone who you may not have met and with whom you may or not have had a conversation, and who may or may not have expressed and opinion on this topic which may or may not have been what you claim is about as weak of an argument as you can get.

Right. Whereas you constant mention of armies of scholars who support your claims, none of whom you ever cite, is really compelling. You suggested that I know nothing about necromancy. I told you that I do. That's it. Got anything else?