Praying For The Dead: Possible, Truth, or Heresy?

C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710
edited May 2018 in Apologetics

I was driving, randomly turned the radio to a religious station. I don't know the call number or the program. It was one of questions and answers for children to call in. I didn't get the question, but the answer was appalling. The host (unknown) told the child on live radio that he could pray "TO" and "FOR" his friend who died that was in heaven. From whence come such teachings? Is it possible? Is it true? or Is it pure heresy and the host of the program should be ashamed of himself for misleading a child with false hope? CM

Post edited by C_M_ on
«1

Comments

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,210

    I always pray to God in Jesus' name. I have no confidence my prayer is heard otherwise. And if my conscience bothers me about some sin I'm aware of, I cannot have faith even if I use Jesus' name. So I always pray asking for forgiveness first and for a grant of repentance before mentioning anything else. For me, all other prayers might end up in the wrong spiritual hands.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    Thanks, but can you help me with the OP? CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:
    I was driving, randomly turned the radio to a religious station. I don't know the call number or the program. It was one of questions and answers for children to call in. I didn't get the question, but the answer was appalling. The host (unknown) told the child on live radio that he could pray "TO" and "FOR" his friend who died that was in heaven. From whence come such teachings? Is it possible? Is it true? or Is it pure heresy and the host of the program should be ashamed of himself for misleading a child with false hope? CM

    No, your friend has no power so why would you pray to them? There is also no biblical support to pray to dead people. Second, why pray for them? Their destiny is already set in stone.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    Mr. Reformed,

    Praying for the dead is found in 2 Macc. 12: 45f (where praying for the dead, ‘that they might be delivered from their sin’, is said to be ‘a holy and pious thought’). Jerome rightly concluded that 2 Maccabees did not belong to the books to be used ‘for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas’ that is the Apocrypha.

    Bruce Metzger makes a comparative analysis of the Apocrypha’s pervasive influence on ancient and modern great hymns. When Luther was challenged by his principle of ‘Scripture alone’ concede that there is no Scriptural authority for praying for the dead. It's unbiblical. It's shouldn't be taught to anyone, especially, not to children. How this all started? The search goes on. CM

    SOURCES:
    Metzger, B.M. (1963). An Introduction to the Apocrypha. (2nd Printing). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 147-150. He gives helpful background information on this issue. (1957: 212-222)
    Bloesch, D.G. (1994). Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration, and Interpretation. Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:
    Mr. Reformed,

    Praying for the dead is found in 2 Macc. 12: 45f (where praying for the dead, ‘that they might be delivered from their sin’, is said to be ‘a holy and pious thought’). Jerome rightly concluded that 2 Maccabees did not belong to the books to be used ‘for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas’ that is the Apocrypha.

    Bruce Metzger makes a comparative analysis of the Apocrypha’s pervasive influence on ancient and modern great hymns. When Luther was challenged by his principle of ‘Scripture alone’ concede that there is no Scriptural authority for praying for the dead. It's unbiblical. It's shouldn't be taught to anyone, especially, not to children. How this all started? The search goes on. CM

    SOURCES:
    Metzger, B.M. (1963). An Introduction to the Apocrypha. (2nd Printing). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 147-150. He gives helpful background information on this issue. (1957: 212-222)
    Bloesch, D.G. (1994). Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration, and Interpretation. Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press.

    I'm not following you, how is this related to what I said?

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:

    I'm not following you, how is this related to what I said?

    1. In responding to my OP, you said, "No, your friend has no power so why would you pray to them? There is also no biblical support to pray to dead people. Second, why pray for them? Their destiny is already set in stone."
    2. It was not my friend, to begin with. I shared what I heard the radio.
    3. I agree a dead person has no power because the dead has no life.
    4. You are right, there is no need to pray "for" or "to the dead." This is why I was initially shocked to hear it being said to children over the radio.
    5. As for what I share recently, it was not limited totally to what you said. A part of my sharing has to do with my inquisitive mind. I often wonder how some spiritual or church teachings got started and who promotes them. I like to go behind the "yes" or "no" answers to the origin of a thing. I believed in life if many knew how, when and why some doctrinal teachings got started we would be surprised and guide other aright.
    6. So, Mr. Reformed, my last post, is from the "the Apocrypha", where this teaching appeared and perhaps where the radio host got it or was referring to when he spoke to the children over the airwaves.
      • I was affirming you in your statement on the subject matter. There is no Scriptural authority for praying for the dead.
    7. In doing so, I shared two references for further reading or to check it out for yourself. It gives you greater opportunity to re-enforce your understanding or to disagree.
    8. Last, I thought you would've easily discerned what I had done.

    Is something wrong or improper with this? A site of this caliber, I believe we can endure a little broadening of one's understanding on a matter. "Certo?" CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    I'm not following you, how is this related to what I said?

    1. In responding to my OP, you said, "No, your friend has no power so why would you pray to them? There is also no biblical support to pray to dead people. Second, why pray for them? Their destiny is already set in stone."
    2. It was not my friend, to begin with. I shared what I heard the radio.
    3. I agree a dead person has no power because the dead has no life.
    4. You are right, there is no need to pray "for" or "to the dead." This is why I was initially shocked to hear it being said to children over the radio.
    5. As for what I share recently, it was not limited totally to what you said. A part of my sharing has to do with my inquisitive mind. I often wonder how some spiritual or church teachings got started and who promotes them. I like to go behind the "yes" or "no" answers to the origin of a thing. I believed in life if many knew how, when and why some doctrinal teachings got started we would be surprised and guide other aright.
    6. So, Mr. Reformed, my last post, is from the "the Apocrypha", where this teaching appeared and perhaps where the radio host got it or was referring to when he spoke to the children over the airwaves.
      • I was affirming you in your statement on the subject matter. There is no Scriptural authority for praying for the dead.
    7. In doing so, I shared two references for further reading or to check it out for yourself. It gives you greater opportunity to re-enforce your understanding or to disagree.
    8. Last, I thought you would've easily discerned what I had done. Is something wrong or improper with this? A site of this caliber, I believe we can endure a little broadening of one's understanding on a matter. "Certo?" CM

    Yes, but you shouldn't post it as a response to what I said, that just makes it confusing.

    That being said I know it wasn't your friend. I was responding as that is what you would say to that friend if it were your friend.

    Personally, I don't really care where the teaching came from, I only care that it isn't biblical and it is a worthless venture because once dead their fate is sealed.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:
    That being said I know it wasn't your friend. I was responding as that is what you would say to that friend if it were your friend.

    Understood.

    Personally, I don't really care where the teaching came from,

    In CD, you will find all type of interests and approaches. Some of your likings and some otherwise. So now, you know, mine.

    I only care that it isn't biblical and it is a worthless venture because once dead their fate is sealed.

    When you understand a person's base knowledge or reference point, you can better relate to and/or guide the individual into truth or improvement. Besides, having a broad base knowledge of a subject matter is fatness to the soul. CM

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    In following up on the topic of Prayers for the dead, I found there are many other practices not supported by the Bible. Cardinal Newman tells us that Constantine introduced many things admittedly of pagan origin.

    • "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." "

    Unfortunately, the adopting of pagan elements, which had already begun before Constantine's "conversion" accelerated it, was to continue long afterward. Christianity gradually became perverted into a strange mixture in which the original gospel elements changed to the point of being virtually unrecognizable in the medieval church.

    Peter of Bruys (fl. 1105-1126) a powerful preacher and His followers (Petrobrusians), who made the four Gospels the cornerstone of his preaching, followed the Epistles and recognized only the baptism of adults.

    Peter and the Petrobrusians held strictly to biblical standards:

    1. He insists on those who had received baptism in infancy had to be rebaptized.
    2. He rejected transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, and even the Lord's supper.
    3. He abhorred the veneration of the cross and of relics, as well as prayers for the dead.
    4. He was not opposed to marriage.
    5. He obliged priests who accepted his teachings to take a wife.
    6. He disparaged images, saint worship, fasting, and holy days.

    At his death, his followers were absorbed by the more widespread and better organized Waldenses (See Albert Newman below). We all need to check ourselves. Oh, how Christianity has deviated from the Bible, what a great reminder!

    SOURCES:

    -- J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360.
    -- Augustus Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. 1.
    -- Albert H. Newman, op. cit., A Manual of Church History, vol. 1, pp. 559-562

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I was driving, randomly turned the radio to a religious station. I don't know the call number or the program. It was one of questions and answers for children to call in. I didn't get the question, but the answer was appalling. The host (unknown) told the child on live radio that he could pray "TO" and "FOR" his friend who died that was in heaven. From whence come such teachings? Is it possible? Is it true? or Is it pure heresy and the host of the program should be ashamed of himself for misleading a child with false hope? CM

    @reformed said: "...There is also no biblical support to pray to dead people. Second, why pray for them? Their destiny is already set in stone".

    Given this truth and reality (I am in agreement), is it not equally true that the dead CAN'T pray or HELP pray for the living (those that are alive on earth) for anything or about anything?

    • "For in death there is no remembrance of You;
      In the grave who will give You thanks"? (Ps 6:5 NKJV).

    • "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going (Ec 9:10 NKJV).

    • "For Sheol cannot thank You,
      Death cannot praise You;
      Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your truth.
      19 The living, the living man, he shall praise You,
      As I do this day; The father shall make known Your truth to the children" (Is 38:18–19 NKJV)

    In a discussion on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in another thread, is there any biblical records of Mary being translated [without experiencing death] to heaven or resurrected [restored life] after death to heaven? In light of the passages above and others of the Bible, can Mary assist someone's prayers? CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:
    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:
    I was driving, randomly turned the radio to a religious station. I don't know the call number or the program. It was one of questions and answers for children to call in. I didn't get the question, but the answer was appalling. The host (unknown) told the child on live radio that he could pray "TO" and "FOR" his friend who died that was in heaven. From whence come such teachings? Is it possible? Is it true? or Is it pure heresy and the host of the program should be ashamed of himself for misleading a child with false hope? CM

    @reformed said: "...There is also no biblical support to pray to dead people. Second, why pray for them? Their destiny is already set in stone".

    Given this truth and reality (I am in agreement), is it not equally true that the dead CAN'T pray or HELP pray for the living (those that are alive on earth) for anything or about anything?

    • "For in death there is no remembrance of You;
      In the grave who will give You thanks"? (Ps 6:5 NKJV).

    • "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going (Ec 9:10 NKJV).

    • "For Sheol cannot thank You,
      Death cannot praise You;
      Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your truth.
      19 The living, the living man, he shall praise You,
      As I do this day; The father shall make known Your truth to the children" (Is 38:18–19 NKJV)

    In a discussion on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in another thread, is there any biblical records of Mary being translated [without experiencing death] to heaven or resurrected [restored life] after death to heaven? In light of the passages above and others of the Bible, can Mary assist someone's prayers? CM

    Yes, that is also true. The dead can't be called upon for help either.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said: "...There is also no biblical support to pray to dead people. Second, why pray for them? Their destiny is already set in stone".

    @C_M_ said: In a discussion on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in another thread, is there any biblical records of Mary being translated [without experiencing death] to heaven or resurrected [restored life] after death to heaven? In light of the passages above and others of the Bible, can Mary assist someone's prayers? CM

    @reformed said: Yes, that is also true. The dead can't be called upon for help either.

    Your understanding is unusual in view of many other Christians. However, you're in good standing and company with truth, the Bible, and the history of the past, in opposition to Prayers for the dead:

    1. CLAUDIUS (d. 839), bishop of Turin, and sometimes styled "Bishop of the Valleys," was born in Spain. A talented preacher, he was for some years chaplain at the court of Louis the Pious, the successor of Charlemagne. He repudiated tradition, prayers for the dead, and relics. He contended that the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of Christ's death, not a repetition. He fought strenuously against image worship, kissing the cross, et cetera. He specifically denied Roman primacy. Thus he has come to be called the "Protestant of the ninth century."

    2. The Waldenses who held firmly to:
      (1) The absolute authority and inspiration of the Scriptures
      (2) The Trinity of the Godhead
      (3) The sinful state of man
      (4) Free salvation by Jesus Christ
      (5) Faith working by love.

    • They also rejected oaths, the death penalty, and some of them purgatory, prayers for the dead, the invocation of saints, and similar practices (see Muston).
    1. The Italian and Austrian Waldenses reflect the background of earlier dissenters in northern Italy and neighboring territory who taught "... # (12) Rejection of prayers for dead—Peter, Henry, and Claudius (See Comba).

    Keep studying. We must proclaim biblical truth. CM

    Sources:

    • McClintock, John, and James Strong. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1867-83: 10 vols. vol. 2, p. 371
    • Allix, Peter. Some Remarks Upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont. New ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1821. chap. 9.
    • Wylie, J. A. The History of Protestantism. London: Cassell and Company, Limited, [n.d.] 3 vols. p. 21.
    • Muston, Alexis. The Israel of the Alps. A Complete History of the Waldenses. Translated by John Montgomery. London: Blackie & Son, 1875. 2 vols. vol. I, pp. 20, 21, citing manuscripts in Dublin and Geneva for each.
    • Comba, Emilio. History of the Waldenses of Italy, From Their Origin to the Reformation. Translated from the author's revised edition by Teofilo E. Comba. London: Truslove & Shirley, 1889.
  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said: "...There is also no biblical support to pray to dead people. Second, why pray for them? Their destiny is already set in stone".

    @C_M_ said: In a discussion on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in another thread, is there any biblical records of Mary being translated [without experiencing death] to heaven or resurrected [restored life] after death to heaven? In light of the passages above and others of the Bible, can Mary assist someone's prayers? CM

    @reformed said: Yes, that is also true. The dead can't be called upon for help either.

    Your understanding is unusual in view of many other Christians. However, you're in good standing and company with truth, the Bible, and the history of the past, in opposition to Prayers for the dead:

    I don't know of any true Christian that believes you can pray to the dead. The Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    Someone asked me a while back why would one want to pray for a dead person when perhaps you never prayed for them while they were alive? Also, for what would one want to pray for a dead person? Pray that they would wake up ? or what?

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    Your understanding is unusual in view of many other Christians. However, you're in good standing and company with truth, the Bible, and the history of the past, in opposition to Prayers for the dead:

    I don't know of any true Christian that believes you can pray to the dead. The Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church.

    Reformed,
    What? I never heard it put so starkly. Please do explain your position, reasoning and/or cite references. If you have to start a new thread, by all means, do so.

    Besides, if the RCC is not what you say it is, then what is it? I assume you're speaking from facts, documentation and sound reasoning, over personal-"beef" or animus (hostility or ill feeling). I remain. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    Your understanding is unusual in view of many other Christians. However, you're in good standing and company with truth, the Bible, and the history of the past, in opposition to Prayers for the dead:

    I don't know of any true Christian that believes you can pray to the dead. The Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church.

    Reformed,
    What? I never heard it put so starkly. Please do explain your position, reasoning and/or cite references. If you have to start a new thread, by all means, do so.

    Besides, if the RCC is not what you say it is, then what is it? I assume you're speaking from facts, documentation and sound reasoning, over personal-"beef" or animus (hostility or ill feeling). I remain. CM

    The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible. They are a cult just like mormonism.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    Besides, if the RCC is not what you say it is, then what is it? I assume you're speaking from facts, documentation and sound reasoning, over personal-"beef" or animus (hostility or ill feeling). I remain. CM

    The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible. They are a cult just like mormonism.

    Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    Besides, if the RCC is not what you say it is, then what is it? I assume you're speaking from facts, documentation and sound reasoning, over personal-"beef" or animus (hostility or ill feeling). I remain. CM

    The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible. They are a cult just like mormonism.

    Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

    Let's take indulgences for example.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:

    The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible. They are a cult just like Mormonism.

    Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

    Let's take indulgences for example.

    Come on, lay it out:

    1. What are indulgences? Please define it.
    2. When were they established?
    3. By whom were indulgences brought to light?
    4. For what purpose(s) are indulgences imposed?
    5. Is it in effect today?
    6. Is it a requirement for all or some?
    7. Is it against the Bible?
    8. Is it against Christ?
    9. Is there anything, like "indulgences", comparable in the Protestant Churches?
    10. Is this official teaching, a practice of a few, or by all, everywhere in the RCC?

    Do you have or know of resources to support what you claim? CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible. They are a cult just like Mormonism.

    Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

    Let's take indulgences for example.

    Come on, lay it out:

    1. What are indulgences? Please define it.
    2. When were they established?
    3. By whom were indulgences brought to light?
    4. For what purpose(s) are indulgences imposed?
    5. Is it in effect today?
    6. Is it a requirement for all or some?
    7. Is it against the Bible?
    8. Is it against Christ?
    9. Is there anything, like "indulgences", comparable in the Protestant Churches?
    10. Is this official teaching, a practice of a few, or by all, everywhere in the RCC?

    Do you have or know of resources to support what you claim? CM

    Oh my goodness, have you ever been in a history class? Ever heard of the Reformation? Ever heard of Martin Luther? Good grief do some research.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible. They are a cult just like Mormonism.

    Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

    Let's take indulgences for example.

    Come on, lay it out:

    1. What are indulgences? Please define it.
    2. When were they established?
    3. By whom were indulgences brought to light?
    4. For what purpose(s) are indulgences imposed?
    5. Is it in effect today?
    6. Is it a requirement for all or some?
    7. Is it against the Bible?
    8. Is it against Christ?
    9. Is there anything, like "indulgences", comparable in the Protestant Churches?
    10. Is this official teaching, a practice of a few, or by all, everywhere in the RCC?

    Do you have or know of resources to support what you claim? CM

    Oh my goodness, have you ever been in a history class? Ever heard of the Reformation? Ever heard of Martin Luther? Good grief do some research.

    Yes, I have.

    Reformed, you said:

    @reformed: The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible".

    I asked:

    CM: "Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

    And then you said:

    @ Reformed said: "Let's take indulgences for example".

    You can't verify what you're saying? I've heard many things by many people. Historians are like some Bible Translators, bias. Can you document your truth and not just repeat what others said is true?

    Let's keep in mind, I asked you if you were able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? "Indulgences" is an example, I am sure it sits in a context. History class or not, can you make your point convincingly? CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible. They are a cult just like Mormonism.

    Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

    Let's take indulgences for example.

    Come on, lay it out:

    1. What are indulgences? Please define it.
    2. When were they established?
    3. By whom were indulgences brought to light?
    4. For what purpose(s) are indulgences imposed?
    5. Is it in effect today?
    6. Is it a requirement for all or some?
    7. Is it against the Bible?
    8. Is it against Christ?
    9. Is there anything, like "indulgences", comparable in the Protestant Churches?
    10. Is this official teaching, a practice of a few, or by all, everywhere in the RCC?

    Do you have or know of resources to support what you claim? CM

    Oh my goodness, have you ever been in a history class? Ever heard of the Reformation? Ever heard of Martin Luther? Good grief do some research.

    Yes, I have.

    Reformed, you said:

    @reformed: The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible".

    I asked:

    CM: "Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

    And then you said:

    @ Reformed said: "Let's take indulgences for example".

    You can't verify what you're saying? I've heard many things by many people. Historians are like some Bible Translators, bias. Can you document your truth and not just repeat what others said is true?

    Let's keep in mind, I asked you if you were able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? "Indulgences" is an example, I am sure it sits in a context. History class or not, can you make your point convincingly? CM

    I don't think you genuinely care. You know about indulgences I am sure. You know they aren't biblical. You know the Pope sanctioned them. You know they helped spark the reformation.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710
    edited January 4

    @reformed said:

    Oh my goodness, have you ever been in a history class? Ever heard of the Reformation? Ever heard of Martin Luther? Good grief do some research.

    Yes, I have.

    Reformed, you said:

    @reformed: The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible".

    I asked:

    CM: "Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

    And then you said:

    @ Reformed said: "Let's take indulgences for example".

    You can't verify what you're saying? I've heard many things by many people. Historians are like some Bible Translators, bias. Can you document your truth and not just repeat what others said is true?

    Let's keep in mind, I asked you if you were able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? "Indulgences" is an example, I am sure it sits in a context. History class or not, can you make your point convincingly? CM

    I don't think you genuinely care. You know about indulgences I am sure. You know they aren't biblical. You know the Pope sanctioned them. You know they helped spark the reformation.

    There, you go again...

    @reformed: "I don't think you genuinely care".

    Judging motives? Making a statement without a shred of proof.

    On another point, I didn't say I have no basic knowledge of the subject matter. I said can you confirm your statement with documentation, quotes, etc. To this point, you haven't offered anything beyond your claims in the way of primary or secondary sources. If you can't, just say so, I'll understand. CM

    Post edited by C_M_ on
  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    Oh my goodness, have you ever been in a history class? Ever heard of the Reformation? Ever heard of Martin Luther? Good grief do some research.

    Yes, I have.

    Reformed, you said:

    @reformed: The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible".

    I asked:

    CM: "Until I am able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? CM

    And then you said:

    @ Reformed said: "Let's take indulgences for example".

    You can't verify what you're saying? I've heard many things by many people. Historians are like some Bible Translators, bias. Can you document your truth and not just repeat what others said is true?

    Let's keep in mind, I asked you if you were able to confirm your statement, do you have any documentation, quotes or examples? "Indulgences" is an example, I am sure it sits in a context. History class or not, can you make your point convincingly? CM

    I don't think you genuinely care. You know about indulgences I am sure. You know they aren't biblical. You know the Pope sanctioned them. You know they helped spark the reformation.

    There, you go again...

    @reformed: "I don't think you genuinely care".

    Judging motives? Making a statement without a shred of proof.

    On another point, I didn't say I have no basic knowledge of the subject matter. I said can you confirm your statement with documentation, quotes, etc. To this point, you haven't offered anything beyond your claims in the way of primary or secondary sources. If you can't, just say so, I'll understand. CM

    It's common knowledge, if you want further proof get it yourself.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    There, you go again...

    @reformed: "I don't think you genuinely care".

    Judging motives? Making a statement without a shred of proof.

    On another point, I didn't say I have no basic knowledge of the subject matter. I said can you confirm your statement with documentation, quotes, etc. To this point, you haven't offered anything beyond your claims in the way of primary or secondary sources. If you can't, just say so, I'll understand. CM

    It's common knowledge, if you want further proof get it yourself.

    Wow! Is this a new year? Deja Vu. I am sorry, I didn't mean to upset you so soon in the new year. I take your less than kind remarks that you're unable to provide any primary or secondary sources on you bold call against the RCC. Your point and willingness are well understood. The search goes on. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    There, you go again...

    @reformed: "I don't think you genuinely care".

    Judging motives? Making a statement without a shred of proof.

    On another point, I didn't say I have no basic knowledge of the subject matter. I said can you confirm your statement with documentation, quotes, etc. To this point, you haven't offered anything beyond your claims in the way of primary or secondary sources. If you can't, just say so, I'll understand. CM

    It's common knowledge, if you want further proof get it yourself.

    Wow! Is this a new year? Deja Vu. I am sorry, I didn't mean to upset you so soon in the new year. I take your less than kind remarks that you're unable to provide any primary or secondary sources on you bold call against the RCC. Your point and willingness are well understood. The search goes on. CM

    I can provide them I just don't deem your request worth my time when it is a commonly known fact you could get yourself.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    On another point, I didn't say I have no basic knowledge of the subject matter. I said can you confirm your statement with documentation, quotes, etc. To this point, you haven't offered anything beyond your claims in the way of primary or secondary sources. If you can't, just say so, I'll understand. CM

    It's common knowledge, if you want further proof get it yourself.

    Wow! Is this a new year? Deja Vu. I am sorry, I didn't mean to upset you so soon in the new year. I take your less than kind remarks that you're unable to provide any primary or secondary sources on you bold call against the RCC. Your point and willingness are well understood. The search goes on. CM

    I can provide them I just don't deem your request worth my time when it is a commonly known fact you could get yourself.

    Reformed,
    Thanks for confirming my points above, of your response. I got what was said and not written but meant. On this open forum, there are more than just you and me, like it or not. Others could have benefited. Besides, my request was not so much for just general knowledge, but for documentation, quotes, etc.

    @ Reformed said: "I can provide them I just don't deem your request worth..."

    This is disappointing. I am reminded that a closed hand is limited and receives nothing. An opened hand is the most effective and powerful to give and receive. Notwithstanding, a revelation is a revelation, Reformed. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    On another point, I didn't say I have no basic knowledge of the subject matter. I said can you confirm your statement with documentation, quotes, etc. To this point, you haven't offered anything beyond your claims in the way of primary or secondary sources. If you can't, just say so, I'll understand. CM

    It's common knowledge, if you want further proof get it yourself.

    Wow! Is this a new year? Deja Vu. I am sorry, I didn't mean to upset you so soon in the new year. I take your less than kind remarks that you're unable to provide any primary or secondary sources on you bold call against the RCC. Your point and willingness are well understood. The search goes on. CM

    I can provide them I just don't deem your request worth my time when it is a commonly known fact you could get yourself.

    Reformed,
    Thanks for confirming my points above, of your response. I got what was said and not written but meant. On this open forum, there are more than just you and me, like it or not. Others could have benefited. Besides, my request was not so much for just general knowledge, but for documentation, quotes, etc.

    @ Reformed said: "I can provide them I just don't deem your request worth..."

    This is disappointing. I am reminded that a closed hand is limited and receives nothing. An opened hand is the most effective and powerful to give and receive. Notwithstanding, a revelation is a revelation, Reformed. CM

    If you want others to benefit then why don't you provide documentation?

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @C_M_ said: In a discussion on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in another thread, is there any biblical records of Mary being translated [without experiencing death] to heaven or resurrected [restored life] after death to heaven? In light of the passages above and others of the Bible, can Mary assist someone's prayers? CM

    @reformed said: Yes, that is also true. The dead can't be called upon for help either.

    Your understanding is unusual in view of many other Christians. However, you're in good standing and company with truth, the Bible, and the history of the past, in opposition to Prayers for the dead:


    I don't know of any true Christian that believes you can pray to the dead. The Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church.

    @reformed said: The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible. They are a cult just like mormonism.

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said: Wow! Is this a new year? Deja Vu. I am sorry, I didn't mean to upset you so soon in the new year. I take your less than kind remarks that you're unable to provide any primary or secondary sources on you bold call against the RCC. Your point and willingness are well understood. The search goes on. CM

    I can provide them I just don't deem your request worth my time when it is a commonly known fact you could get yourself.

    Given that you choose not to verify your claims with any documentation, in saying...

    @reformed said: "The Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church".

    Reformed, in your opinion, would you put the RCC in the same boat or category with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism? If not, why not? Perhaps, you want to re-think your statement above. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @C_M_ said: In a discussion on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in another thread, is there any biblical records of Mary being translated [without experiencing death] to heaven or resurrected [restored life] after death to heaven? In light of the passages above and others of the Bible, can Mary assist someone's prayers? CM

    @reformed said: Yes, that is also true. The dead can't be called upon for help either.

    Your understanding is unusual in view of many other Christians. However, you're in good standing and company with truth, the Bible, and the history of the past, in opposition to Prayers for the dead:


    I don't know of any true Christian that believes you can pray to the dead. The Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church.

    @reformed said: The RCC says the Pope speaks for God and can override Scripture. They do this OFTEN. They don't follow the Bible. They are a cult just like mormonism.

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said: Wow! Is this a new year? Deja Vu. I am sorry, I didn't mean to upset you so soon in the new year. I take your less than kind remarks that you're unable to provide any primary or secondary sources on you bold call against the RCC. Your point and willingness are well understood. The search goes on. CM

    I can provide them I just don't deem your request worth my time when it is a commonly known fact you could get yourself.

    Given that you choose not to verify your claims with any documentation, in saying...

    @reformed said: "The Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church".

    Reformed, in your opinion, would you put the RCC in the same boat or category with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism? If not, why not? Perhaps, you want to re-think your statement above. CM

    https://www.ligonier.org/blog/primer-roman-catholicism/

Sign In or Register to comment.