[Tj3]

But awareness is essential to communication. You seem to be ignoring that part.

You really make me wonder if you read what I say. Awareness in and of itself means nothing. You need to prove that communication with the dead is permitted and endorsed in scripture - something that you have not and apparently cannot do, or you would have done so long before this.

The Saints are alive in Christ. You keep ignoring that as well.

That doesn't matter. The proibition is against communication with those dead in the flesh. Must I keep repeating that?

But the context is "witchcraft". There is a big difference between a medium who conjures up the dead by some unknown force and praying to the Saints in the body of Chrst.

No difference is given in scripture.

I don't agree. It is obvious from the context that St. Paul is concerned for the family in their hour of distress. It is obvious from the context that St. Paul is praying for his soul. And we know from Tradition that St. Onesiphorus was martyred.

Again, I will go by what scripture says, not your denomination's tradition. The context is clear that he is alive.

Communication with the Saints in Heaven is permitted.

You keep saying this, but I am waiting for scripture which says that.

It is perfectly relevant. And the Scriptures do call the Angels "Holy" which is the meaning of the word "Saint" And Christ says that those in heaven are like the angels:

Sigh. You keep trying to distract from the point. Angels are not dead in the flesh.

Not always. Prayer is also a form of communication.

With God.

[De Maria]

You really make me wonder if you read what I say.

Its very simple Tj. You simply don't like what I say and you would rather I not say it.

The simple fact is, you have an outlook for which you think you have evidence upon which to stand.

I'm of the same opinion concerning my outlook.

The difference between you and I is that I provide my opinions and the evidence in support of my opinions without at the same time trying to force you to change yours.

Awareness in and of itself means nothing. You need to prove that communication with the dead is permitted and endorsed in scripture

No, I don't.

I have proven that communication with Saints is permitted and endorsed by the Church in Her Traditions, including Scripture, no matter where they may be.

I have proven that Scripture depicts the Saints in heaven as beings who are aware of their surroundings, of our existence and our circumstances.

I have proven that Scripture calls the Saints "witnesses".

And I have proven that I follow a different standard than you. I have confirmed my standard is also taught in Scripture. That standard being that the Church is our authority to decide disputes (Matt 18:17). And that the Church is called the Pillar of Truth in Scripture (1 Tim 3:15).

Whereas, although you claim your standard is in Scripture, you have not provided the chapter and verse which says one must live by Scripture alone.

- something that you have not and apparently cannot do, or you would have done so long before this.

Because I don't believe in communication with the "dead". I communicate with the Saints who are alive and well in the Body of Christ.

You want to redefine my beliefs.

That doesn't matter. The proibition is against communication with those dead in the flesh. Must I keep repeating that?

No. The prohibition is with soothsaying and witchcraft. The black arts.

The first Christians, who were much closer to the Apostles than the Reformers by 1300 years, they prayed to the Saints in heaven. There is evidence from earliest Church history. Just becaiuse you won't accept this evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.

No difference is given in scripture.

Scripture doesn't even make the comparison. But the Church which canonized the Scriptures does make the comparison and permits prayer to the Saints. And the Scriptures describe this Church as authoritative and truthful.

Again, I will go by what scripture says, not your denomination's tradition. The context is clear that he is alive.

Should we agree to disagree then. Not only on this but on the whole discussion because we seem to be repeating the same things over and over.

You keep saying this, but I am waiting for scripture which says that.

Luke 16depicts the Rich Man crying out to Father Abraham.
It also depicts Father Abraham conversing with the Rich Man and speaking with authority.

Scripture confirms the Saints in heaven are living.
Scripture depicts humans conversing with Angels. Scripture confirms that the Saints in heaven are as the Angels.
Scripture calls the Saints in heaven a "cloud of witnesses". Witnesses are watching and listening and reporting what they hear and see.
Scripture says God's will should be done earth as it is in heaven. Since it is God's will that we pray for each other on earth, that is evidence that the Saints in heaven are already praying for us.

Sigh. You keep trying to distract from the point. Angels are not dead in the flesh.

But Angels are Saints.

With God.

And the Saints.

Should we agree to disagree?

[Tj3]

Its very simple Tj. You simply don't like what I say and you would rather I not say it.

No, your outright appear to ignore what I say in many cases and too often use strawman arguments to bolster your point.

I have proven that communication with Saints is permitted and endorsed by the Church in Her Traditions, including Scripture, no matter where they may be.

By the private interpretation of the teachings of your denomination. This is the crux of the matter. That is your standard for doctrine, mine is what scripture says prohibiting communication with those dead in the flesh. Since your establish your standard as being the teachings of your denomination and mine is the scripture, we have no common basis of understanding and no hope of coming to common ground on this issue.

And I have proven that I follow a different standard than you.

Bingo! I'll stick with scripture.

I have confirmed my standard is also taught in Scripture.

I disagree. You have redefined the word "church" to mean your denomination which did not exist at that time.

No. The prohibition is with soothsaying and witchcraft. The black arts.

That is your private interpretation and does not align either with the English or Hebrew texts.

The first Christians, who were much closer to the Apostles than the Reformers by 1300 years, they prayed to the Saints in heaven. There is evidence from earliest Church history. Just becaiuse you won't accept this evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.

I could argue from the early Christians also, but what believers were earlier than those who penned scripture? And we know that scripture is inspired by God and therefore is not a private interpretation of man.

Should we agree to disagree then. Not only on this but on the whole discussion because we seem to be repeating the same things over and over.

Yep. As long as you rely upon your denominational private interpretation as the standard, and I go to the Bible as interpreted by itself, we have no hope of ever coming to common ground.

[De Maria]

No, your outright appear to ignore what I say in many cases and too often use strawman arguments to bolster your point.

You keep saying but simply repeating it won't make it so.

By the private interpretation of the teachings of your denomination.

The Church is not private. It is very Public.

Your teachings on the other hand, they are private.

This is the crux of the matter. That is your standard for doctrine, mine is what scripture says prohibiting communication with those dead in the flesh. Since your establish your standard as being the teachings of your denomination and mine is the scripture, we have no common basis of understanding and no hope of coming to common ground on this issue.

Again, your standard is not Scripture but your INTERPRETATION thereof.

A good example would be the Government of the United States. We have a Constitution. But we aren't allowed to interpret it privately. We have a Supreme Court to do that.

The US Government is not wiser than God.

God inspired the Christian Constitution. The Bible. And He has provided one Institution to interpret it, the Church.

Bingo! I'll stick with scripture.

Scripture says:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

So, if you really stick to Scripture, you'll listen to the Church.

I disagree. You have redefined the word "church" to mean your denomination which did not exist at that time.

Not so. I have identified my Church as the one described in Scripture. Its easy and logical to do so.

After all, Jesus built one Church and He said it would never fail. I believe in Jesus and in His Promises. Therefore, the Church He built is out there. But which is it?

I believe it is the Catholic Church because I went through the Scriptures and identified all the points which described the Church.

Then I went through history and compared the teachings of the early Churches to Scripture. They all believe in Tradition and never heard of Sola Scriptura.

That is your private interpretation and does not align either with the English or Hebrew texts.

I disagree.

I could argue from the early Christians also,

Be my guest.

but what believers were earlier than those who penned scripture?

None. But the believers which followed those who penned Scripture confirm by their behavior what they were taught by those who penned Scripture.

And we know that scripture is inspired by God

Yes. In men.

and therefore is not a private interpretation of man.

Correct. We must strive to interpret Scripture in the same Spirit as those who penned Scripture.

Yep. As long as you rely upon your denominational private interpretation as the standard, and I go to the Bible as interpreted by itself, we have no hope of ever coming to common ground.

Actually, we do. My "interpretation" is based upon the Word of God in Sacred Tradition. That is, in Word and Scripture. Yours is based on the Word of God in Scripture alone. But the Word of God does not contradict. We know the Word of God is not in error. One of us is. All that one has to do is identify the error.

Now, when I used to believe in Sola Scriptura, all I did was go through the centuries and observe that no one believed that doctrine until right before Luther. And Luther picked it up and ran with it.

I believe I've identified the error.

And I have an institution which has stood for 2000 years to back me up.

Sincerely,

[Tj3]

The Church is not private. It is very Public.

Scripture refers to a contrast between those that comes from men as private and those that come from the Holy Spirit, not in contrast to public.

Again, your standard is not Scripture but your INTERPRETATION thereof.

Strawman

And He has provided one Institution to interpret it, the Church.

Now if only God had said that in the Bible, you'd have an argument.

After all, Jesus built one Church and He said it would never fail.

The body of all believers is what he said in the Bible, not a denomination.

Then I went through history and compared the teachings of the early Churches to Scripture. They all believe in Tradition and never heard of Sola Scriptura.

You missed some.

None. But the believers which followed those who penned Scripture confirm by their behavior what they were taught by those who penned Scripture.

Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit not men.

Correct. We must strive to interpret Scripture in the same Spirit as those who penned Scripture.

No, the Holy Spirit according to scripture is the only one authorized to interpret it.

Actually, we do. My "interpretation" is based upon the Word of God in Sacred Tradition.

I'll stick with the Bible which we are told is the word of God (2 Tim 3:16).

And I have an institution which has stood for 2000 years to back me up.

You follow the teaching and private interpretation of an almost 1700 institution. But age is no proof of accuracy. I'll stick with what the Bible says.

[De Maria]

Scripture refers to a contrast between those that comes from men as private and those that come from the Holy Spirit, not in contrast to public.

No. The contrast is between those that come from men alone

21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time:

And those that come from holy men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit:

but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Now if only God had said that in the Bible, you'd have an argument.

He did when He said, "take him to the Church" to settle disputes (Matt 18:17).

The body of all believers is what he said in the Bible, not a denomination.

Where? I see where He built a Church and gave Her the authority to bind and loose:

Matthew 18 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

You missed some.

Again, you make statements without support. I provided the historical and Scriptural evidence. All you have to say is, "you missed some".

Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit not men.

The Word of God was spoken and written by Holy men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit.

No, the Holy Spirit according to scripture is the only one authorized to interpret it.

Where does Scripture say that?

2 Timothy 2 15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

I'll stick with the Bible which we are told is the word of God (2 Tim 3:16).

I'll stick with the Church which contains the Bible which She canonized and the New Testament which She wrote because Scripture says She is the Pillar of Truth.

You follow the teaching and private interpretation of an almost 1700 institution. But age is no proof of accuracy. I'll stick with what the Bible says.

Truth stands the test of time.

Sincerely,

[Tj3]

No. The contrast is between those that come from men alone

Sigh... I cannmot help you if we cannot deal with what scripture says. There is nothing about public vs private in that passage.

He did when He said, "take him to the Church" to settle disputes (Matt 18:17).

Are we going to keep going around in circles forever? How many times must I refute that?

Where? I see where He built a Church and gave Her the authority to bind and loose:

The body of all believers. Not a denomination.

Again, you make statements without support. I provided the historical and Scriptural evidence. All you have to say is, "you missed some".

Tell me why I should waste my time when you ignore anything that I write, keep asking me to repeat it over and over and post strawman arguments? Show me that it is worth my effort, and maybe I will help you further. But up to now, I have seen no interest from you in actually dealing with what I have had to say.

I'll stick with the Church which contains the Bible which She canonized and the New Testament which She wrote because Scripture says She is the Pillar of Truth.

No denomination, including yours existed at the time that scripture was written.

[De Maria]

sigh... I cannmot help you if we cannot deal with what scripture says. There is nothing about public vs private in that passage.

Message #125, You said:
Scripture refers to a contrast between those that comes from men as private and those that come from the Holy Spirit, not in contrast to public.

I responded:

Message #126,

No. The contrast is between those that come from men alone

21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time:

and those that come from holy men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit:

but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Now, if something isn't private, it is public. And the Scriptures weren't meant for anyone to take aside to himself, "privately" and interpret them by eschewing the rest of the world. And the Church is not a private matter either. God didn't call us to Himself by ourself. We are to join His Church and believe His teachings which are passed down by His Church in Word and Scripture. So, interpretation of the Word of God in Traditon and Scripture is a very PUBLIC matter indeed.

Are we going to keep going around in circles forever? How many times must I refute that?

I don't see any refutation.

The body of all believers. Not a denomination.

I believe it is precisely the denomination now called the Catholic Church. I realize you don't agree, but you have yet to trace your beliefs to the Scriptures or to the early Church. Whereas I have traced the beliefs of the Catholic Church to both.

Tell me why I should waste my time when you ignore anything that I write, keep asking me to repeat it over and over and post strawman arguments? Show me that it is worth my effort, and maybe I will help you further. But up to now, I have seen no interest from you in actually dealing with what I have had to say.

Its just an exchange of information. You don't have to convince me, I don't have to convince you. Just explain your side, I'll explain mine. Hopefully, our conversation will be edifying to those who are interested in the matter.

Although, if you feel it is time to agree to disagree, that is fine also.

No denomination, including yours existed at the time that scripture was written.

I believe the Catholic Church did exist in Apostolic Times. I believe the Catholic Church is the Apostolic Church.

Sincerely,

[Tj3]

Now, if something isn't private, it is public.

That is your private interpretation but that is not what scripture says. If "public" interpretation was okay, then you would be required to accept the interpretation of any group (whoever they are) that chooses to discuss it publicly.

I don't see any refutation.

I am not surprised. You have not see a lot of things.

I believe it is precisely the denomination now called the Catholic Church.

You can believe what you wish - that does not make it true.

I realize you don't agree, but you have yet to trace your beliefs to the Scriptures or to the early Church. Whereas I have traced the beliefs of the Catholic Church to both.

You have yet to acknowledge or deal with what I have posted in this regard. That does not mean that I did not post it.

Its just an exchange of information. You don't have to convince me, I don't have to convince you. Just explain your side, I'll explain mine. Hopefully, our conversation will be edifying to those who are interested in the matter.

It makes no sense if you are are not discussing or responding to what I am saying.

I believe the Catholic Church did exist in Apostolic Times. I believe the Catholic Church is the Apostolic Church.

Believe as you wish - history and even your Cardinal John H. Newman disagree.

As I said in the other thread, since you refuse to actually discuss anything from scripture but rather simply promote the private interpretation of your denomination, and refuse to consider the responses, but rather just repeat the same old same old, I see no value in continuing.

I will stand on what God's word says, not the private interpretation of your denomination or any other denomination.

[De Maria]

That is your private interpretation but that is not what scripture says. If "public" interpretation was okay, then you would be required to accept the interpretation of any group (whoever they are) that chooses to discuss it publicly.

Not so. But the Apostles did expect you to accept the public interpretation of the Word of God that they passed on.

Acts Of Apostles 4 31 And when they had prayed, the place was moved wherein they were assembled; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with confidence.

Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.

You can believe what you wish - that does not make it true.

But it doesn't make it false, either.

You have yet to acknowledge or deal with what I have posted in this regard. That does not mean that I did not post it.

It makes no sense if you are are not discussing or responding to what I am saying.



Believe as you wish - history and even your Cardinal John H. Newman disagree.

As I said in the other thread, since you refuse to actually discuss anything from scripture but rather simply promote the private interpretation of your denomination, and refuse to consider the responses, but rather just repeat the same old same old, I see no value in continuing.

I will stand on what God's word says, not the private interpretation of your denomination or any other denomination.

Thanks for taking time out of your day to respond to my messages. Sounds like we've come to the end of the road on this discussion as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Not so. But the Apostles did expect you to accept the public interpretation of the Word of God that they passed on.

They did not say public. That is your private interpretation.

Thanks for taking time out of your day to respond to my messages. Sounds like we've come to the end of the road on this discussion as well.

It appears so.