DEBATE: Is prayer to Mary & the saints worship?

I did not say "Words have no meaning" nor did I say "We can just assign words meaning."

I didn't say you personally did. But the idea that your church uses prayer in a "broad" sense is just an excuse to excuse praying to saints dead in the Lord, as one would to God.
I asked where Scripture teaches that the specific science of linguistic analysis teaches that this gives the absolute meaning of the passage.

It doesn't. But again, words do have meaning and that includes in the Bible. Context determines the best meaning of a passage. Context is Kryptonite to Catholicism.
Also, while we are on the subject, what happens when Greek scholars disagree on how a word should be rendered? What does Scripture teach about that?
It is always a good idea to have several different Biblical translations to compare and contrast.

But some translations ARE patently wrong--like the Douay-Rheims has the woman crushing the serpent's head, in Genesis, instead of HE will crush the serpent's head. The pronouns in this passage are definitely masculine, not feminine.

What is also wrong was rendering "repent' as "do penance" in the NT. There is no Greek word for "penance" used in the Bible, that I am aware of.
 
I didn't say you personally did. But the idea that your church uses prayer in a "broad" sense is just an excuse to excuse praying to saints dead in the Lord, as one would to God.
Devotion to Mary and the saints does not violate the sense of Scripture. That was my point.
It doesn't.
Well, then, case closed right? What happened to "When the Scriptures are silent, I am silent. When the Scriptures speak, I speak?"
But again, words do have meaning and that includes in the Bible. Context determines the best meaning of a passage. Context is Kryptonite to Catholicism.
There are a lot of factors that go into determining the meaning of a passage. For Catholics, the biggest part of understanding the Scriptures is through Tradition. That should make sense to anyone with half of brain. The Gospel existed orally first, within the context of the Christian Community. It only makes sense, then, that the Scriptures continue to be understood within the context of the larger Christian community----not only in the here and now, but throughout history.
It is always a good idea to have several different Biblical translations to compare and contrast.
How do you determine which is the best one? Where does the Bible tell us how to determine the best possible translation?
But some translations ARE patently wrong--like the Douay-Rheims has the woman crushing the serpent's head, in Genesis, instead of HE will crush the serpent's head. The pronouns in this passage are definitely masculine, not feminine.
And---what? So Jerome made a mistake when he translated that passage. This is generally admitted in Catholic circles. I am not sure what you think you prove by pointing out this error. I mean what? Do you think our teachings on Mary stand or fall with that translation?
What is also wrong was rendering "repent' as "do penance" in the NT. There is no Greek word for "penance" used in the Bible, that I am aware of.
Okay, here you point out something that once again, I am not sure what you think you prove by this.
 
it doesn't

what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Um, well, you see, YOU, sir, are the one who subscribes to Sola Scriptura. THAT is what it has to do with the price of tea in China.

You try to bind my conscience to the whims of some Greek scholar somewhere--and yet cannot show where the Scriptures teach that the musings and whims of Greek scholars and their translations are authoritative.
 
Um, well, you see, YOU, sir, are the one who subscribes to Sola Scriptura. THAT is what it has to do with the price of tea in China.

You try to bind my conscience to the whims of some Greek scholar somewhere--and yet cannot show where the Scriptures teach that the musings and whims of Greek scholars and their translations are authoritative.
Dear Strawman
No Sola Scriptura advocate ever believed Scripture is a Greek to English dictionary:

But if Catholics continually want to make up their own definitions of words used in the bible;
Then of course there will be division.

re: musings and whims of Greek scholars
please provide the the Greek Scholar who disagrees with multiple Geek lexicons
 
Dear Strawman
No Sola Scriptura advocate ever believed Scripture is a Greek to English dictionary:

But if Catholics continually want to make up their own definitions of words used in the bible;
Then of course there will be division.

re: musings and whims of Greek scholars
please provide the the Greek Scholar who disagrees with multiple Geek lexicons
You miss the point.

Sola Scriptura tells us ONLY what is the supreme authority in the Church. The Bible is the supreme authority.

Fine. Catholics can agree on that much.

What Sola Scriptura does NOT tell us is:

1) How does one interpret the Bible? That is--should one interpret the Bible using modern scientific literary analysis and exegesis? Linguistic analysis? Should one interpret the Bible using the methods of the ECF?

2) What happens when translators disagree on how to translate a word or words?

3) What happens when Christians cannot agree on the meaning of a passage?

4) What constitutes the Bible in the first place? What books are to be received as Scripture?

5) Are there other books that are inspired that could be discovered down the line and added?

6) Are translations of the Bible just as authoritative as the original manuscripts, or are only the manuscripts authoritative?

I could go on and on.
 
When I was in your Church I also was taught that it was not Idolatry. Thats the reason why I left your Apostate Church. If you seek after the Truth you will find it and you will be set free as the Lord set me free. "For whom the Lord sets free is free indeed.
I found the Truth in the Church that Jesus founded, not in one of the many counterfeits.
 
You miss the point.

Sola Scriptura tells us ONLY what is the supreme authority in the Church. The Bible is the supreme authority.

Fine. Catholics can agree on that much.

What Sola Scriptura does NOT tell us is:

1) How does one interpret the Bible? That is--should one interpret the Bible using modern scientific literary analysis and exegesis? Linguistic analysis? Should one interpret the Bible using the methods of the ECF?

2) What happens when translators disagree on how to translate a word or words?

3) What happens when Christians cannot agree on the meaning of a passage?

4) What constitutes the Bible in the first place? What books are to be received as Scripture?

5) Are there other books that are inspired that could be discovered down the line and added?

6) Are translations of the Bible just as authoritative as the original manuscripts, or are only the manuscripts authoritative?

I could go on and on.
the point is: that you are dismissing the Biblical meaning of the word "prayer" in order to justify a Catholic church practice.
If your CC wants to do that, fine:

but it is not the Protestants who are in error by using a word in its Biblical sense to describe a Biblical concept,

That's the point
 
On Monday, January 23rd at 8pm EST, I will be participating in a LIVE YouTube debate with Pastor Chuck, an Eastern Orthodox priest, on whether or not prayer to Mary & the saints is worship. I will be taking the position that prayer “IS” worship. You don’t need a YouTube account to watch it, but if you have one, the live chat will be active so you can post questions for us. Please keep me in your prayers, so God can be glorified.

The Temple where worship took place is called a "house of prayer" (Matthew 21:13).
 
If you were in the Church you would know this is not idolatry.
It is okay as you are not in His church and therefore it is idolatry. No RC can back up their claims that it is okay. Mary never prayed to the dead, Jesus only ever said to pray to the father, the apostles never prayed to the dead. It is made up thing by RCC and goes against not communicating with the dead.
 
Jesus Church began on the Day of Pentecost. RCC didn,t even exist.
Hmm...the Church gathered together in constant prayer, unified, Mary with them and Peter, promoting apostolic succession (Acts 1:15-26) and speaking on behalf of the Church and the Faith (Acts 2: 14-41). "They devoted themselves (gasp! Idolatry!) to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Sure LOOKS like the Catholic Church!
 
The Church that Jesus founded did not show up 1500+ years later after the fact. Those that did are the counterfeits.
It was not your bad tree that Jesus founded. Yours is a counterfeit church as it fails to teach the truth and has fallen into pagan practices like communicating with the dead, bowing before statues etc. If your institution was the real thing it would pass all scriptural tests and look like the real thing but it doesn't. RCs always compare it to over there. The real church is nothing like over their. Your very posts prove it is not HIS church.

His church looks after the sheep, yours harms the sheep. His church follows all scriptures, your ignores so many verses examples James 4:17, 1 Cor 5:11. His church exposes sin, yours hides it. His church teaches the true gospel, yours teaches a false doctrine. His church has one mediator, one redeemer, one advocator and yours has a co on these things. His church prays only to the Lord, yours prays to every Tom, Dick and Harry and knows not where these people really are. His church has all believers as saints and priests, yours has only a select few. His church all are equal, yours has a hierarchy. His church the leaders meet the scriptural requirements for leaders, yours doesn't. His church leaders are servants, your leaders aren't. His leaders tell the truth, yours lie to authorities, to the laity etc. The list of how your institution is the exact opposite of His church is long but those examples will do for a start.

Your institution looks like it is lead by the Roman Emperors and acts like the Romans who formed it. The leaders do not look Jesus or act like Jesus. It does not matter when it was established it is not His church and never will be.
 
Hmm...the Church gathered together in constant prayer, unified, Mary with them and Peter, promoting apostolic succession (Acts 1:15-26) and speaking on behalf of the Church and the Faith (Acts 2: 14-41). "They devoted themselves (gasp! Idolatry!) to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Sure LOOKS like the Catholic Church!
It was not and never will be the RCC. see post 199.
 
Back
Top