Do you Pray to Angels?
-
I do what SIS does best:Originally posted by shade343:What is the definition of heresy?
dictionary.com:
a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
-
aiya .. i know what you want to say lah .. you want use the "what makes you think the early church is correct" argument right? haha ..
-
On the contrary, I cant be bothered. I think I would just say, Go read the Da vinci Code.Originally posted by Icemoon:aiya .. i know what you want to say lah .. you want use the "what makes you think the early church is correct" argument right? haha ..
-
have you read debunking the da vinci code?Originally posted by shade343:On the contrary, I cant be bothered. I think I would just say, Go read the Da vinci Code. -
No. I dont think its necessary.Originally posted by Icemoon:have you read debunking the da vinci code? -
Prohibition doesnÂ’t have to be explicit. Many prohibitions in the Bible are implied.Originally posted by shade343:But the phrase does not mention that it is WRONG to pray to angels. It is just against those who pray to angels and does not believe in jesus and think they know alot.
You do not see in the Bible explicitly and word for word that it is WRONG to take cocaine or shabu or etc. But it is implied in 1 Corinthians 6:12, the first of the ten commandments, 1 Cor. 3:17 and etc.
About the issue of Paul not against the practice but against the praticee:
I beg to disagree, Paul was not primarily against those who pray to angels,
the Colossian Christians were influenced by false and erroneous teachings Â….these Colossian Christians began to practice what these Judaizers and Gnostics were teachingÂ…..he was not against his fellow brothers and sisters in ChristÂ…Â…he was against the practice of praying to angels and Jewish regulations taught by these erroristsÂ…Â…. Read the verse again:
Col 2:16 “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—
From verse 16, he was against the practice of Jewish customs and regulations like eating certain kinds of food, drinking only certain kinds of drink and observing certain days stemming from outdated religious beliefs.
In verse 17, take note of the pronoun used by Paul, it does not say “whose are shadows of things to come…..” No…….but it says: “WHICH are a shadow of things to come…….”
Paul did not use the personal pronoun WHOSE but the NEUTER pronoun WHICH. Meaning he is not against the persons practicing these things but the practice itself. How could he be against these peopleÂ…Â…..some of them practicing such were his Colossian brethren. Christians are to love and not be against our brethren who commit mistakes. We love the sinner we hate the sin.
In verse 18 he tackles the practices of a) taking delight in false humility [taking delight in false humility doesn’t sound like a person to me but a practice] and b) worship of angels. [Take note: it doesn’t say ‘worshipper of angels’ but ‘worship of angels’ (the practice of it not the practicee)].
And it is made even clearer in verse 20 that Paul was not primarily against those who practice such errors but the wrong practices themselves. Look at verse 20 notice the verbs:
20 “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though LIVING in the world, do you SUBJECT yourselves to REGULATIONS [ or practices, italics mine]—“
These Colossians were being rebuked by Paul for they are LIVING, SUBJECTING THEMSELVES TO REGULATIONS OR ERRONEOUS PRACTICES. What practices or regulations? The ones mentioned above: a) Jewish practices and b) taking delight in false humility and the worship of angels.
One more thing about the statement that: "paul was not saying that it is wrong to pray to angels. He was just against those who pray to angels and does not believe in jesus and think they know alot."
Okay, granting without conceding for the sake of discussion that Paul was against people and not the practice itself.
Question: "Why was Paul against these people?
" What was the reason why Paul was against such people?
"Was he against them for no reason at all?
Of course, the only logical answer to that is: Paul was against such people because of their wrong pracitces, right? And what are these wrong practices? Jewish religiosinism, taking delight in false humility and WORSHIP OF ANGELS, right?
Question:
"When you are against someone because of his wrong deeds, are you not also implicitly saying that you do not approve of the deeds?" -
1 John 5:7 (New King James Version)Originally posted by Icemoon:The Trinity befuddles even the greatest minds cos it is simply incomprehensible. On one hand we have to emphasize the distinct nature of Christ as different from the Father and the Holy Ghost. On the other hand, we have to stress that Jesus is fully God and so is the Holy Ghost. Each end of the spectrum is a heresy.
The two of you are slipping into heresy. Shade emphasized on the clear distinction between the Father and the Son, while you seems to advocate both are one and the same?
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. -
Originally posted by breytonhartge:
Meaning they came from the same source. They all work as one.
1 John 5:7 (New King James Version)
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; [b]and these three are one.[/b] -
as laoda99 would say "hiazzzz" No point continuning this... lets leave it here...Originally posted by shade343:Meaning they came from the same source. They all work as one. -
got people pray to Lucifer.
-
John 1:1Originally posted by breytonhartge:as laoda99 would say "hiazzzz" No point continuning this... lets leave it here...
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Three points can be gleaned from the text:
a) The eternality of the Word
b) The distinctive personality of the Word from God
c) The Deity of the Word
I
The eternality of the Word: “In the beginning was the Word…….”
The words “in the beginning” take us back to Genesis 1:1 wherein there we can see the account of creation. And based on the context of these verse [verses 2-3], we are sure to identify the beginning here as referring to the time when God created the heavens and the earth.
Question: “Did the Word already exist from the beginning?”
The verb ‘was’ [‘in the beginning WAS the Word…’] is quite telling regarding the answer to this question. Unlike the English language, Greek verbs emphasize more on the nature of the action than the time of the action as in the English. So ‘Was’ here tells not of when did the Word exists but what kind of existence the Word have.
In Greek, the verb ‘WAS’ is in the imperfect tense, active voice. Imperfect tenses in Greek describe an action that is continuing in the past and still is continuing in the present. And not only is the verb in the imperfect tense but it is also in the active voice.
Active voices in Greek signify dynamism of the doer.
The long and short answer to our question would be “YES, Absolutely, the Word existed from the past”. The Word’s existence could be described by the following characteristics based on the exegesis of the verb ‘was’.
First: The Word’s existence antedates that of the creation of the world. It is said: “in the beginning WAS [imperfect tense] the Word.”
Before Genesis 1:1 the Word was already in existence.
Second: The Word was active in the beginning [based on the active voice of the verb ‘was’]. The Word was not dormant and doing nothing in the beginning, no, rather the Word was active. And based on the following verses, we see the Word’s activity; the Word was actively ‘busy’ in creation.
At this point someone would likely object and say: “No, in that verse the Word was the agent of creation, not the creator.” True, but John 1:1 is not the only source of information about the pre-incarnate state of the Lord Jesus Christ. We have to consider also the whole counsel and teaching of the Bible regarding this area in other portions of Scripture. We all agree that the best commentary of the Bible is the Bible itself right?
The Bible teaches that the Word was indeed the agent of creation but it also teaches that the Word is also the active and direct creator of the world and not just a mere agent or instrument in creation:
Heb 1:8 “But to the Son [the Word] He [God] says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."
10 And: "You, LORD [referring to the Word] in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment;
Before the creation of the world, the Word was. The Word existed from eternity.
II
Moving to the second point: b) the distinctive personality of the Word from the Father:
“in the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God………”
The preposition ‘WITH’ is the word pros in Greek in the accusative case. Pros in the accusative case in Greek means fellowship, harmony and intimacy.
Question: “Who was the Word in fellowship with, in harmony with and in close intimacy with?”
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word WAS WITH GOD……”
This verse is a blast against oneness theology. In order for them to justify their teaching they have to circumvent the pros in the accusative case in this verse. They have to do gymnastics with pros in the accusative case. The Word could not be God the Father because the Word was WITH the Father implying distinction of personalities between the Word and the Father.
Fellowship happens only between two persons AT LEAST. No one can have fellowship with oneself. Again the Bible gives further light regarding this [the Bible is the best commentator of itself]:
In every book of the Bible, the Lord Jesus appears either in type, shadows or in prophecy. In the book of Proverbs he appears as the wisdom that every man needs. In chapter 8 of the same book starting from verse 22 down to verse 29 we can see that Wisdom [ the Word or the Lord Jesus] was with the Father before the creation of the world, during and after. Wisdom further states in verse 30 that in the time of creation He was with the Father like a MASTER CRAFTSMAN. CraftsmanÂ’s craft is building and constructing right?
30 “Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,”
IsnÂ’t that a picture of harmony and intimacy?
III
Moving on to the last point: c) The Deity of the Word; “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
What further clear statement do we need to have about the Deity of the Word.
“The Word was God”……….”The Word was God”…….”The Word was God”
From this statement two things can be gleaned:
First: The Word has always been God from eternity
Again the verb “WAS” is in the imperfect tense in Greek. This means the Word was God from the past eternity, God at the time of John’s writing this letter and still is God in the future eternity.
Re 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Second: The Word is not A God
Notice it does not say “the Word was A God” No, the Word was God.
In the original Greek there is no article ‘a’ for there is no article ‘a’ in Greek. The word ‘a’ is very, very significant to orthodox theology. Putting an ‘a’ before the word ‘God’ in this verse commits two significant errors:
First: It is adding to the Word of God, the Bible. We are not to add something to His words.
Proverbs 30: “Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”
Second: It is a blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ. It borders to rejecting His deity.
It is making Him divine in contrast to His true nature and essence of being God. -
well said ironside! Amen!
-
Tis is really something contradictory. To say 3 distinctly different things as the same is really as logically flawed as saying a unicorn is invisible and pink at the same time. If it is distinct it is distinct. If it is the same it means it is not distinct and every aspect of it is the same. But people claims tat they r distinct and not distinct at the same time
It is really as ridiculous as seeing pink and seeing nothing at the same time... -
errr.....and your point is?Originally posted by Ironside:John 1:1
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Three points can be gleaned from the text:
a) The eternality of the Word
b) The distinctive personality of the Word from God
c) The Deity of the Word
I
The eternality of the Word: “In the beginning was the Word…….”
The words “in the beginning” take us back to Genesis 1:1 wherein there we can see the account of creation. And based on the context of these verse [verses 2-3], we are sure to identify the beginning here as referring to the time when God created the heavens and the earth.
Question: “Did the Word already exist from the beginning?”
The verb ‘was’ [‘in the beginning WAS the Word…’] is quite telling regarding the answer to this question. Unlike the English language, Greek verbs emphasize more on the nature of the action than the time of the action as in the English. So ‘Was’ here tells not of when did the Word exists but what kind of existence the Word have.
In Greek, the verb ‘WAS’ is in the imperfect tense, active voice. Imperfect tenses in Greek describe an action that is continuing in the past and still is continuing in the present. And not only is the verb in the imperfect tense but it is also in the active voice.
Active voices in Greek signify dynamism of the doer.
The long and short answer to our question would be “YES, Absolutely, the Word existed from the past”. The Word’s existence could be described by the following characteristics based on the exegesis of the verb ‘was’.
First: The Word’s existence antedates that of the creation of the world. It is said: “in the beginning WAS [imperfect tense] the Word.”
Before Genesis 1:1 the Word was already in existence.
Second: The Word was active in the beginning [based on the active voice of the verb ‘was’]. The Word was not dormant and doing nothing in the beginning, no, rather the Word was active. And based on the following verses, we see the Word’s activity; the Word was actively ‘busy’ in creation.
At this point someone would likely object and say: “No, in that verse the Word was the agent of creation, not the creator.” True, but John 1:1 is not the only source of information about the pre-incarnate state of the Lord Jesus Christ. We have to consider also the whole counsel and teaching of the Bible regarding this area in other portions of Scripture. We all agree that the best commentary of the Bible is the Bible itself right?
The Bible teaches that the Word was indeed the agent of creation but it also teaches that the Word is also the active and direct creator of the world and not just a mere agent or instrument in creation:
Heb 1:8 “But to the Son [the Word] He [God] says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."
10 And: "You, LORD [referring to the Word] in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment;
Before the creation of the world, the Word was. The Word existed from eternity.
II
Moving to the second point: b) the distinctive personality of the Word from the Father:
“in the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God………”
The preposition ‘WITH’ is the word pros in Greek in the accusative case. Pros in the accusative case in Greek means fellowship, harmony and intimacy.
Question: “Who was the Word in fellowship with, in harmony with and in close intimacy with?”
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word WAS WITH GOD……”
This verse is a blast against oneness theology. In order for them to justify their teaching they have to circumvent the pros in the accusative case in this verse. They have to do gymnastics with pros in the accusative case. The Word could not be God the Father because the Word was WITH the Father implying distinction of personalities between the Word and the Father.
Fellowship happens only between two persons AT LEAST. No one can have fellowship with oneself. Again the Bible gives further light regarding this [the Bible is the best commentator of itself]:
In every book of the Bible, the Lord Jesus appears either in type, shadows or in prophecy. In the book of Proverbs he appears as the wisdom that every man needs. In chapter 8 of the same book starting from verse 22 down to verse 29 we can see that Wisdom [ the Word or the Lord Jesus] was with the Father before the creation of the world, during and after. Wisdom further states in verse 30 that in the time of creation He was with the Father like a MASTER CRAFTSMAN. CraftsmanÂ’s craft is building and constructing right?
30 “Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,”
IsnÂ’t that a picture of harmony and intimacy?
III
Moving on to the last point: c) The Deity of the Word; “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
What further clear statement do we need to have about the Deity of the Word.
“The Word was God”……….”The Word was God”…….”The Word was God”
From this statement two things can be gleaned:
First: The Word has always been God from eternity
Again the verb “WAS” is in the imperfect tense in Greek. This means the Word was God from the past eternity, God at the time of John’s writing this letter and still is God in the future eternity.
Re 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Second: The Word is not A God
Notice it does not say “the Word was A God” No, the Word was God.
In the original Greek there is no article ‘a’ for there is no article ‘a’ in Greek. The word ‘a’ is very, very significant to orthodox theology. Putting an ‘a’ before the word ‘God’ in this verse commits two significant errors:
First: It is adding to the Word of God, the Bible. We are not to add something to His words.
Proverbs 30: “Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”
Second: It is a blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ. It borders to rejecting His deity.
It is making Him divine in contrast to His true nature and essence of being God.
-
he is doing an exegesis lah .. *knocks your head* He also debunked your argument.Originally posted by shade343:errr.....and your point is? -
How about this? Can you see UV rays? Isnt UV rays violet and invisible to you at the same time?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tis is really something contradictory. To say 3 distinctly different things as the same is really as logically flawed as saying a unicorn is invisible and pink at the same time. If it is distinct it is distinct. If it is the same it means it is not distinct and every aspect of it is the same. But people claims tat they r distinct and not distinct at the same time It is really as ridiculous as seeing pink and seeing nothing at the same time... 
-
oh ? But that doesnt change the fact that The Son, The Father and The holy Spirit is 3 different entity, though they came from teh same source which is The Father.Originally posted by Icemoon:he is doing an exegesis lah .. *knocks your head* He also debunked your argument. -
what now .. Father coming from Father?Originally posted by shade343:oh ? But that doesnt change the fact that The Son, The Father and The holy Spirit is 3 different entity, though they came from teh same source which is The Father. -
No. What I mean is, The Son and the Holy Spirit Came from The Father.Originally posted by Icemoon:what now .. Father coming from Father? -
the word already was... it did not come from the father... please reread the post by ironside... and pay attention to it.... read slowly and carefullyOriginally posted by shade343:No. What I mean is, The Son and the Holy Spirit Came from The Father.
-
Who made the Word?Originally posted by breytonhartge:the word already was... it did not come from the father... please reread the post by ironside... and pay attention to it.... read slowly and carefully -
How about this? Can you see UV rays? Isnt UV rays violet and invisible to you at the same time?
We can't see ultraviolet light. It is not invisible and violet at the same time. It is plain invisible. The reason why is has an "ultra" attached to it is because the wavelenght is lower than the wavelength we can see.
So logically if it still holds tat if is distinct, it can't be the same. If it is the same it can't be distinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet -
you might as well ask who made God?Originally posted by shade343:Who made the Word? -
Yah .. you can't see so it is invisible. So I caught you with an example heh?Originally posted by stupidissmart:We can't see ultraviolet light. It is not invisible and violet at the same time. It is plain invisible. The reason why is has an "ultra" attached to it is because the wavelenght is lower than the wavelength we can see.
So logically if it still holds tat if is distinct, it can't be the same. If it is the same it can't be distinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet
Distinct can still be the same - gamma rays distinct from radio waves but all are EM waves. All travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s. -
I think SIS is confused with the law of non-contradiction.