A prayer?

[Rusty T]

The angel didn't say, "Hail Jesus," so the prayer doesn't make sense as you've modified it. Oh well.

rusty

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Very nice sentiments, and I have in general no problem with what you state. However, I'm sure that my interpretation of things supports my conclusion. You are equally sure that I am wrong. How do we proceed? Is the only solution for each of us to continue on his merry way, and trust that we'll find out who's right in the end?

To begin with, there was a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. If you want to be against it, fine, but be against the real thing and not a straw man version of it.

How do we proceed? We study it. Yeah. That might sound hard to some, but believe it or not, I don't believe the Holy Spirit gives us the interpretation of the text. I believe we can find the meaning of a text just like we could any other text. I'm no postmodern. I don't believe the text is beyond our reach. These were written to common people like you and I. We just need to reacquaint ourselves with the times and study.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

but phoenix, the Bible itself calls the saints in heaven around the throne 'righteous men made perfect'. And this is all spoken of in the context of our boldness in approaching God in prayer - that when do so, we are in a very real way approaching the whole of heaven.

Could you give the passage?

[JusticeMachine]

The angel didn't say, "Hail Jesus," so the prayer doesn't make sense as you've modified it. Oh well.

rusty

The prayer doesn't say they did.

[Rusty T]

Could you give the passage?

sure

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
(Heb 12:22-23)

[Dee Dee Warren]

No more perfect than us:

Heb. 11:40 (NKJV) God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

Funny how context changes things. The perfection is the sacrifice of Christ. Unless you are denying that the bodily resurrection changes things, and that as disembodied spirits we are as perfect as we are ever going to be?

No? I didn't think so.

[Rusty T]

I love context! And that is a perfect example of the idea of the Body of Christ! They are perfect already. The Bible calls them perfect. Read chapter 12! It's about our sin, us - here below. How we are called to repentance, to live a holy life. It's written to inspire awe and fear in us - "Look at what we have approached! The very throne of God!" It's a moving passage of scripture. The author is far from saying that those in heaven aren't made perfect . . . he declares them perfect, and he's far from declaring us perfect already - look at the context: " In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." That's the whole point of Chapter 11 and 12! Look at these who've gone before! See their witness and their strivings and their pains. And, seeing them. . . Look to Jesus! But he doesn't say, "Look to Jesus and forget them!" No, when we approach the throne of God, we approach all that He is, including the saints in heaven who bear witness to our own lives. Righteous men, made perfect.

rusty

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sorry, context doesn't say that. We were all made perfect together. You are trying to shoehorn a definition of perfect that doesn't fit in that shoe. Try that glass slipper on another foot.

[ChemMJW]

The prayer doesn't say they did.

Hi,

You misunderstand what Tizzidale means, I think.

What he was trying to communicate is that the prayer that is known today as the "Hail Mary" is to be found in the Bible. See Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42.

An angel (typically assumed to be the archangel Gabriel) is the one who says "Hail Mary, full of grace." Tizzidale is trying to say that you can't just take out the word Mary and replace it with Jesus, because we have a record of what the real words were, and the word was Mary. The angel was speaking directly to Mary, bringing her a message from God, namely that she had been chosen to bear Jesus.

[Rusty T]

We were all made perfect together.

I don't doubt that. But as a Catholic I believe that those in heaven, around God's throne are made perfect. No unrighteousness can enter there, as the Bible says. But now we're getting into soteriology.

rusty

[One Bad Pig]

The Bible isn't littered with hardly ANYTHING ABOUT MARY.

Of course not. But that's not where your analogy was going; the prayer is not scripture. You were comparing JW use of Scripture to justify their view of Christ Jesus to the Orthodox justification for that prayer. Although IMO it's fairly easy to see that Jesus Christ is God in Scripture, it never comes right out and says it. On the other hand, Orthodox tradition is littered with statements that Mary is not God, and should not be worshiped as God.

1. I am taking nothing out of context. It is a prayer context - i.e. admitted religious devotion.

It is taken entirely out of context with what the Orthodox profess about Mary.

2. That was cheap and over the line, but suit yourself. If you are reduced to such sallow arguments (and yes I meant sallow, though shallow would fit as well), it makes me all the more convinced. If you want to know why that over the line, PM me.

Please forgive me. It was not meant to be a cheap shot, but a simple visual illustration.

Of course they weren't orthodox, they at a minimum gave the appearance of worshipping Mary. Just as that prayer does. Just as numerous RCC I have known do.

A simple question would clear up the confusion, but you would rather keep looking at the appearance and wave away the answer than accept it.

[ChemMJW]

I don't believe the Holy Spirit gives us the interpretation of the text.

I was actually shocked to read this from you . . .

I believe we can find the meaning of a text just like we could any other text. I'm no postmodern. I don't believe the text is beyond our reach. These were written to common people like you and I. We just need to reacquaint ourselves with the times and study.

. . . until I realized you were just trying to say you are a dues-paying member of the Holding school. (I don't come across JP that often, but my understanding of his view is pretty much exactly what you just wrote. Pardon me if I'm wrong.)

Anyway, I'm no postmodern either (the idea sickens me). The distinction I would make is that, based on the way I'm reading your text, I probably think it's a lot harder to truly "reacquaint ourselves with the times," even by studying, than you do.

[JusticeMachine]

Hi,

You misunderstand what Tizzidale means, I think.

What he was trying to communicate is that the prayer that is known today as the "Hail Mary" is to be found in the Bible. See Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42.

An angel (typically assumed to be the archangel Gabriel) is the one who says "Hail Mary, full of grace." Tizzidale is trying to say that you can't just take out the word Mary and replace it with Jesus, because we have a record of what the real words were, and the word was Mary. The angel was speaking directly to Mary, bringing her a message from God, namely that she had been chosen to bear Jesus.

Understood. My point was that that passage isn't a prayer and the grace Mary was full with isn 't of Mary's making or doing, it is from GOD.

If you were to make that passage a prayer, it should be to thank GOD for his grace and favor, that he chose to bring his son into the world to save us from our sins. The point is and always should be about the package Mary carried, not about the person who did the carring.

The Lord found favor with Moses, but we don't pray to him. He found favor with Noah, but we don't pray to him.

Make the "Hail Mary prayer" moves the glory of GOD from him and places it on Mary, where it should never be. We believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit. Pray to them.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I was actually shocked to read this from you . . .

Yep. I don't buy into this hearing the voice of God nonsense that every single Protestant has a hotline to Heaven. (I think it's quite dumb of so many to complain of the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra when they do the same thing every day.)

. . . until I realized you were just trying to say you are a dues-paying member of the Holding school. (I don't come across JP that often, but my understanding of his view is pretty much exactly what you just wrote. Pardon me if I'm wrong.)

Sorry bub. I'm no drone. In fact, JPH and I have some exegetical issues we disagree on which we've discussed. I came to this conclusion long before JPH said anything about it. Also not sure what you mean by "dues-paying." Believe it or not, I can reach conclusions on my own.

Anyway, I'm no postmodern either (the idea sickens me). The distinction I would make is that, based on the way I'm reading your text, I probably think it's a lot harder to truly "reacquaint ourselves with the times," even by studying, than you do.

And I never said it'd be easy. That's the deal though. I want what's true and not necessarily what's easy. Will it be hard work? Of course. But hey, if we're all diving into the Scriptures together and sharpening each other's iron, the search is worthwhile is it not?

And Tizzi, I plan to answer you sometime tomorrow when I can look more at the passage.

[ChemMJW]

Yep. I don't buy into this hearing the voice of God nonsense that every single Protestant has a hotline to Heaven. (I think it's quite dumb of so many to complain of the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra when they do the same thing every day.)

Wow! I am excited by this. We may have more in common than I realized.

Sorry bub. I'm no drone. In fact, JPH and I have some exegetical issues we disagree on which we've discussed. I came to this conclusion long before JPH said anything about it. Also not sure what you mean by "dues-paying." Believe it or not, I can reach conclusions on my own.

I admit that my distaste for JPH and his methods may have leaked over here to you a little bit. By dues-paying, I simply meant that, in the many chaotic threads filled with insults and counter-insults which swirl around JPH (we can call it riposte, if you like), you can usually be counted on to toe the Tekton line. This of course is based on my own observations, and nothing more. I know neither you nor him apart from this internet forum (even though you only live a couple hours down I-85 from me), so I have only this forum on which to base my opinion.

And I never said it'd be easy. That's the deal though. I want what's true and not necessarily what's easy. Will it be hard work? Of course. But hey, if we're all diving into the Scriptures together and sharpening each other's iron, the search is worthwhile is it not?

Indeed it is, as long as irons are not being sharpened just to end up in fellows' backs.