[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 80 KB, 480x640, jes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4623583 No.4623583[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

What did the author mean?

Also your favorite Bible passages.

>> No.4623599

>>4623583
"and put thy trust in Allah. And Allah is Ever All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs."

Not a biblical verse obviously but I like it.

>> No.4623595

>And then the Sky Wizard said I love you but believe in me or I'll kill you.

>> No.4623600

>>4623595
Fukin lol'd even though I'm a Christian

>> No.4623626

>>4623595
Teach me your edginess

>> No.4623627

>>4623583
They had just invented their writing and they worshiped it. They gave him a secret name, the mere sight of which only the special perma-virgin class could see.

>> No.4623648

The heart of the prudent will understand a parable, and an attentiue ear is the desire of a wise man.

Sirach 3:29 (King James 1611 translation)

>> No.4623651

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

>> No.4623658

It means that God only exists within the Bible, that he is no more than words.

It was a joke by the writers of the Bible, subtly poking fun at those who mistakenly believed God, and numerous other characters appearing in it, to be a real entity.

It is also a reference to language being mans greatest tool.

>> No.4623661

the word is the manifestation of the will

>> No.4623689

Sound, music or a word or spell is common in most creation myths.
The egyptian story is that thoth uttered a word that resulted in the creation of all things.

I don't really have anything else to say, but, like, yeah

>> No.4623697

The same as every religion, a recognition of the illusion of linguistics. Here, "the Word was God", there, "the said Tao is not Tao". Either way, they are calling your attention to the difference between our conceptions of reality and reality.

>> No.4623710
File: 1019 KB, 500x375, Tree of life dance.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4623710

>>4623651
The Christian has shitposted online:
>The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

>> No.4623711

>>4623689

This is true and something about creation myths I've been interested in too. There's something about the creative aspects of sound or language that carries through them. Language is also a very powerful aspect of the occult.

Somer related links I have bookmarked:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1364097/
http://rosicrucian.50webs.com/hsl/hsl-aum-om-amen.htm
http://gavinjensen.com/blog/god-language-and-reality

It's an interesting idea I'd like to look more into.

And here's the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on the Logos, which you will find useful, OP.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

>> No.4623720

>>4623583
I think the author meant that Jesus (the Logos) was a part of God from the beginning.
He was there from the beginning, He was with God, and He was God.

>Yea, thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.

>> No.4623726

There's a 3-fold degeneracy in the naming of God, Yahweh and the Lord or whatever so that might account for the repetition and you know God only through his name and the world is spoken into existence through the word of God in Genesis.

>> No.4623732

>>4623697

No, I think you're adding later ideas to this. The idea of this verse is not to highlight the idea of language as illusion or the way language molds our perceptions of reality.

Jewish readers would be familiar with the idea of God's word as a personification of His will (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:15-18). And, likewise, the Greeks would have recognised the Logos as the intermediate agency between God and the material world, a sort of bridge. The idea is that the word is a mediating principle between God and the world.

What John is doing here is drawing on these familiar concepts to set the stage for the flesh and blood mediator of God.

>> No.4623736

>What did the author mean?
This >>4623720
>What does it mean?
Nothing, it's just human poetry.
>What could it mean?
When homo sapiens began developing language religion was born.

>> No.4623757

Both in New Testament times and later, the Johannine "Word" offered rich christological possibilities. First the possibility of identification and distinction. On the one hand, words proceed from a speaker; being a kind of an extension of the speaker, they are, in a certain sense, identical with the speaker ("the Word was God"). On the other hand, a word is distinct from one who utters it ("the Word was with God"). Therefore, Christ was/is identified with, yet distinct from, YHWH. Second, God has been uttering the divine Word always ("in/from the beginning"); the Word "was" (not "came to be") God. In this context "Word" opens up reflection on the personal, eternal pre-existence of the Logos-Son. God has never been without the Word.

Third, words reveal their speakers. Shamefully, or happily, words express what is in our mind. In the Old Testament, "the word of God" repeatedly denotes the revelation of God and the divine will. John's Gospel can move smoothly from the language of "the Word" to focus on "God the only Son who has made the Father known" (John 1:18). As the Son of God sent from the Father, or the Son of man who has come down from heaven, in a unique and exclusive way Jesus reveals heavenly knowledge.[35][36] At the same time, this Word offers light to everyone coming into the world (John 1:9), a theme soon developed, with help of Philo, Middle Platonic, and/or Stoic thought, by Justin, Origen, and others.

Fourth, John's Logos Christology opened the way for Christians not only to recognise the influence of the Logos outside Christianity, but also to dialogue with non-Christians thinkers. Those who endorsed Jewish, Platonic, and Stoic strands of thought about the Logos could find a measure of common ground with Christians, who, nevertheless, remained distinctive with their claim that "the Logos was made flesh". The notion of "the Logos" probably offered a more effective bridge to contemporary culture than that of "wisdom".

Finally, when New Testament Christians called the crucified and risen Jesus the Word and Wisdom of God, they were not only expressing his divine identity, but also drawing attention to the fact that Christology might not necessarily begin with the incarnation and not even with Jesus' background in the call, history, and religious faith of the Jewish people. By maintaining that the whole world was created through the divine Wisdom and Word (John 1:3 Col 1:16 Heb 1:2) they did more than link Jesus as the last Adam with the high point of the original creation in the making of human beings. They interpreted him as the divine agent of all creation. Thus, creation, right from the beginning, carried christological face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity)

>> No.4623760

>Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

>> No.4623763

>>4623711
Perhaps it has to do with vibrations. Our universe is composed of just different vibrations (string theory, but it's pretty intuitive and obvious)
Sound is just vibration. I guess it's the closest we can get (in i guess a metaphorical way) to true creation

>> No.4623777

>>4623583
Basically that the world/space-time arose from some platonic informational structure.

>> No.4623784
File: 21 KB, 300x300, wut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4623784

>>4623777
>Platonic informational structure
Care to elaborate?

>> No.4623787

>>4623763
>Our universe is composed of just different vibrations

Yeah nigga, that shit's called the music of the spheres

>> No.4623794

>>4623757

Sounds incredibly interesting, too bad I'm too dumb to understand any of this.

>> No.4623802

>>4623732
It's anachronic and I know it, but I mean the same that you so well articulated there. It's just to acknowledge that the relationship held at that point on God, the Word and us, is as sophisticated as it can get. Something that, in my opinion, is somewhat weaker today, for even if we have excellent theories of language, the theology and the conscience of how we interpret reality is diminished.

Maybe, I don't know.

>> No.4623805

Proverbs 21:19
Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife.

>> No.4623808

>>4623805

lol'd

gotta love the books of wisdom. truly words for all time.

>> No.4623813
File: 449 KB, 500x500, celestial highway.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4623813

>>4623802

>Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? Or do they say nothing? People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds, but is there any difference, or isn't there? What does the Way rely upon, that we have true and false? What do words rely upon, that we have right and wrong? How can the Way go away and not exist? How can words exist and not be acceptable? When the Way relies on little accomplishments and words rely on vain show, then we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Mohists. What one calls right the other calls wrong; what one calls wrong the other calls right. But if we want to right their wrongs and wrong their rights, then the best thing to use is clarity.

>Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven. He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity.

>To use an attribute to show that attributes are not attributes is not as good as using a non-attribute to show that attributes are not attributes. To use a horse to show that a horse is not a horse is not as good as using a non-horse to show that a horse is not a horse. Heaven and earth are one attribute; the ten thousand things are one horse.

>> No.4623822

>>4623813

Which is to say, I agree with your post (>>4623697). To say that "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" - God is made inseparable from language, image, from creation itself. For John, unlike the other evangelists, Jesus is not just a divine teacher, a great prophet and fulfiller of prophecy and the power of the will of God made manifest: he is absolutely everything.

>> No.4623833

http://youtu.be/1zMf_8hkCdc

>> No.4623844

>>4623763
>>4623787
My interest is highly peaked

>> No.4623860
File: 6 KB, 250x201, gmarx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4623860

>>4623813
Hey, everybody.

Read this post in Groucho Marx's voice, tone and speed.

>> No.4623865

>To use an attribute to show that attributes are not attributes is not as good as using a non-attribute to show that attributes are not attributes. To use a horse to show that a horse is not a horse is not as good as using a non-horse to show that a horse is not a horse.
This is twisting me inside.

>> No.4623877

>>4623763

>by examining the structure of music we are exploring the structure of reality.

http://www.gurdjieff.org/werbock1.htm

http://youtu.be/at50acNlke8

>> No.4623910

Gospel of John in the original language
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiARlwIST-o
Listen to this at the same time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEMmX8Nucfk

>> No.4623916

>>4623844
piqued

>> No.4623919
File: 1.93 MB, 235x240, 1360892190203.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4623919

>>4623910

>> No.4623927
File: 22 KB, 281x400, proof9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4623927

>>4623910
>mfw I'm an atheist doing this right now

>> No.4623936

O almighty God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men; Grant unto thy people, that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise; that so, among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

My favourite prayer.

>> No.4623941

>>4623936

I like this little guardian angel prayer

Angel of God, my guardian dear,
to whom His love commits me here,
ever this night be at my side,
to light and guard, to rule and guide. Amen.

It's the only one I can think of that rhymes. It's very sweet.

>> No.4623946

>>4623865

It's a response to the White Horse Dialogue of Kung-Sun Lung, which argues that a white horse is not a horse because "horse" as a word also defines yellow, black horses; that is to say that "white horse" and "horse" refer to different things, ergo a white horse is not a horse. Chuang Tzu's response is not an argument that "white horse" and "horse" in fact refer to the same thing, but a reflection of his thought on discerning any objective preference between philosophical viewpoints, or differentiating between a symbol and its referent. Ergo, a horse is not a horse because an object is not its referent: a horse is not a "horse".

>> No.4623948

>>4623877

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabd

>> No.4623949
File: 91 KB, 630x960, michael-the-archangel-13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4623949

>>4623936
This is probably a strong reflection of my personality, but I've always liked the prayer to Michael best.

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Captain of the Heavenly Host, cast into Hell Satan and every evil spirit who wanders this world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

>> No.4623970

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

1 Corinthians 13 KJV

>For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

>> No.4623987

>>4623949
The version I use differs some

St. Michael the Archangel,
Defend us in battle
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil;
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
And do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
By the power of God, thrust into hell
Satan and all evil spirits
Who wander through the world
For the ruin of souls. Amen

>> No.4623989

Pretty much the entirety of the Gospel of Thomas is great. Better than anything in the Bible, and VERY antithetical to the Bible, too.

>> No.4624014

>>4623760
This this this. I remember this verse confusing me more than any other in the bible for a long time and then one moment it finally hit me. Blessed really are the poor in spirit, for their's is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 7:7 has always stuck with me too, and recently Psalm 62 and psalm 46:10 really did things for me.

>> No.4624024

>>4623583
Something along the lines of this:
<cstdio> (stdio.h)

>> No.4624029

Ezekiel 23:20

King James Bible:

For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

International Standard Version:

She lusted after her paramours, whose genitals are like those of donkeys, and whose emissions are like those of horses.

There's also a verse forbidding shaving, but I don't remember which one it was or the specifics too well.

>> No.4624045

i particularly enjoy psalms, they hide some very meaningful words.

psalm 2:1

"Why do the nations conspire and people plot in vain?"

psalm 2:4

"The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them."

I also like Corinthians 13, Paul's famous speech about love.

>> No.4624834

You know, there's a scientific phenonemon where sound can produce light.

I forget what it's called, but reminded me a lot of John.

The ancients knew.

>> No.4624840

>>4623583
>What did the author mean?

>I'm a raging Platonist, inserting all kinds of extraneous philosophy into Christianity

>> No.4624864

>>4624834

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

>> No.4624871

2 Kings 2:23-24

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

This shit is hilarious to me.

>> No.4624877 [DELETED] 

>>4623763
don't forget about numbers
oh and functions, dimensions, sets, groups, Good/Evil, simplicity, beauty, elegance, complexity, etc. etc.

>muh physicalism

>> No.4624896

>>4623763
>Our universe is composed of just different vibrations
don't forget numbers
and sets, groups, functions, logic, complexity, knowledge, belief, etc. etc.

>muh physicalism

>> No.4624946

I said, "Oh, that I had the wings of a dove! I would fly away and be at rest.

>> No.4624970
File: 61 KB, 443x330, Apuleius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4624970

>>4623711
>the occult

Please leave. Occultism is inauthentic, pre-masticated spirituality for secularised consumerist Westerners.

>> No.4624977

I always understood >>4623583
as a lingustic turn. Only through language things exist. God is a word, just like everything else. Sense is produced only through narrative and language structure.

And on that note, have you seen this /lit/?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3gvubRsykI

>> No.4624981

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Mark 8:36

#RNS

>> No.4625018

>>4623583
>What did the author mean?
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/logos.html
"In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds."

As to the answer to your question I agree with the following posts. >>4623720 , >>4623757

As for favorite passages.
I have different favorites depending on what specific subject is being discussed.
Perhaps I can give a few in a later post. I will have to think about it for a bit.


>>4623941
>>4623949
>>4623987
See thou do it not.

Revelation 22:8-9
"And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God."
>See thou do it not

Matthew 6:9
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
>Our Father

Matthew 11:25-26
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
>I thank thee, O Father
>Even so, Father

John 14:13
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
>in my name

Why are you praying to angels?

>> No.4625027

And you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free. John 8:32

>> No.4625031

After reading the Bible myself, two passages burned into my mind. When Kierkegaard highlighted both of these passages in Fear and Trembling I truly fell in love with his work.

>"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 )
>"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." (Mark 10:18)

>> No.4625037

>>4625031
So basically
>You have to be a complete dick to be his disciple

and

>Jesus isn't God

>> No.4625044

>>4625037
>You have to be a complete dick to be his disciple

That's not what it means.

>Jesus isn't God

He is the Son

>> No.4625060

>>4625037

This is a pretty shallow and decontextualized way of looking at it. Obviously you can't be the disciple of an itinerant preacher unless you leave your home and everything you've got going for you -- later projections of the Christian life as a life of discipleship should not be applied to this passage.

As to the latter: Mark's Christ doesn't claim to be God that I can recall, but only the Son of God. Trinitarian dogma had probably not yet been hashed out when Mark was written.

>> No.4625071

>>4625037

He asked a question
Q:Why do you call me good?
A: Because he was.
i.e. No one is good except God alone.

He was getting them to see that he was in fact God in the form of man. i.e. The son of God.

As for the other verse >>4625031
>If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.

If you would read it in context. It is meant to show the importance of placing God first above all.
The message in the bible is quite clear we are supposed to love God, and also love people.

I think some people are looking for reasons to doubt the bible.
I wonder why that is?

>> No.4625075

>>4625071

It's probably because the only people who ever taught it to them were disingenuous wankstains such as yourself, don't you think?

>> No.4625077

it is not word, it is LOGOS

>> No.4625079

>>4625077
Logos isn't English, you commie faggot

>> No.4625092

>>4625079
The boundaries of a language are not well defined
what is English?, anglosaxon words?, anglosaxon+French words?, what the dictionaries dictate?, what the people use?, ebonics?

>> No.4625111

>>4625092

>what the people use?

This. It's this one.

However, one shouldn't confuse this statement (which effectively says that "logos" is an English word because it is used in English speech/writing) with the statement that "word" and "logos" are synonymous. "Logos" is certainly a very different word from "word", and "word" is only an approximate translation of it.

>> No.4625120

>>4625092
>>4625092
The entire vocabulary of the Greek language clearly isn't English. Go read the original manuscripts if you want your precious untranslated words.

>> No.4625144

>>4625077
Fun fact: logos is the longest entry in the LSJ.

>> No.4625217

>>4625018

Prayer isn't synonymous with worship. And don't be disingenuous, You must know Catholics pray to angels and Saints.

>> No.4625240

>>4623583
Logos means 'reason'. In Greek It would refer to the guiding purpose behind the universe. In Christian theology it takes on a specific meaning based on the Greek philosophical meaning. Read the Church Fathers.

>> No.4625235

>>4624970
explain

>> No.4625260

>>4625092
The boundaries of language are ill defined if you treat it as static or isolated, but language - like much else - is historical. Any other answer is not entirely correct.

>> No.4625263

>>4625075
Thanks for confirming my point.
It should be quite obvious to anyone, that your intentions were to discredit the bible.


If you truly wish to learn about God, then by all means continue lurking.
However if you only wish to confirm your atheism, or spread it, you will have to go elsewhere.

I will defend the bible, and discredit any statements that misrepresent what it says.


>>4625217
Hello again. I'm glad to see you are trying a better approach. At least you can learn from your mistakes.
I am aware of what some Catholics do.
Jesus never said do as the Catholics. The word of God is quite clear.

Is your argument: Because Catholics do it it must be the correct way?

Also
>Prayer isn't synonymous with worship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer
"Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication"
>an object of worship

NiceTry/10, but your gonna have to do better than that anon.

>> No.4625283

>>4625263

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4)

"The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16–18)

Ahistorical Christianity is not defensible. I don't know how anyone could go to a church that isn't centered on the liturgy. Without context, anyone could understand anything as anything, but history provides the ultimate context.

>> No.4625301

>>4625283
> be made for all men, for kings
>for
for is not to

>The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects...
No where does it say that he prayed to an angel.

I wonder just how many times you can be proven wrong before you give up.
I guess we shall see.

>> No.4625331

>>4623583

There is no god but God, and Mohammed is his prophet.

>> No.4625340

>>4625331
Mohammed is a false prophet. see >>4616687

>> No.4625362
File: 875 KB, 1404x1392, Goethe_1791.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4625362

In the beginning was the deed

>> No.4625440

>>4625263
>"Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication"

I don't understand how you could post that exact phrase and misunderstand it as you have done.

Prayer is:

1. an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with
1a. a deity
1b. an object of worship
1c. a spiritual entity

The main point being prayer is a communicative act. It is not solely communicating with an object or worship or a deity.I can't believe you glossed over that so brazenly when it's right there in front of you.

And drop the attitude.

>> No.4625455

>>4625440

Oh, and just to say, I never made the argument that "Because Catholics do it it must be the correct way?". I pointed out that you must be aware of Catholic practices to highlight the falsity of your post and the shitty attitude that runs through it.

"Why are you praying to angels?"

You know damn well that its a Catholic practice. You may not know the reasons behind it, but rather than asking about it to seek understanding and communication you start tripping. You just love to talk down to people.

>> No.4625473

>>4623583
Why, Papa?

>> No.4625476

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latria

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

>> No.4625523

>>4625440
I would refer you to your previous post>>4625217
>Prayer isn't synonymous with worship
>synonymous
i.e. very strongly associated with something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonymous
Considering that the word "worship" is used in the definition of the word prayer.
I contend that it is synonymous with worship. As demonstrated by my previous post. >>4625263

>And drop the attitude
I'm sorry if you consider my posts offensive. I have tried to be respectable.

Are you the same guy who recently called me a "disingenuous wankstation"? >>4625075

>>4625455
I was pointing out that the bible speaks against such things.
A point which has not been refuted. Regardless of who might be doing it.


I can do this all day anon, keep posting.

>> No.4625574

>>4625523

I called you disingenuous but not a 'wankstain'.

Okay, so now you picking up on my vocabulary. I thought it was obvious what I meant. I meant that prayer is not the same as worship, that there is more than one aspect to prayer.

You say that the worship aspect is the strongest. I would agree, but take note that Christianity today is strongly represented by the American Protestant. This isn't how it always was. Even Luther, I believe, agreed with hyperdulia and the reverence of Mary, and with dulia and the reverence of the Saints.

>>4625476

You have quoted some scripture. Revelation 22:8-9 does not support your disapproval of intercessory prayers. It states that worshipping an angel is forbidden. That is correct. Catholics don't worship angels.

You then quote the beginning of the Lord's Prayer. This is most used prayer throughout Christianity, I believe, and for good reason. I see nothing in it that speaks against intercessory prayer.

The other two pieces of scripture, as above, do not condemn intercessory prayer.

Why don't you take a look at this:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints

>> No.4625612
File: 192 KB, 1219x1600, 5978068360_d0f71d5ca1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4625612

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:

Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

>> No.4625628

>>4625574
I never disapproved of intercessory prayers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercession
Intercession is the act of interceding (intervening or mediating) between two parties. In Christian religious usage, it is a prayer to God on behalf of others.
> it is a prayer to God on behalf of others.

That is praying to God for someone else.
Not praying to someone else for someone else.

I have never said its not ok to ask someone to pray for you.
However praying to a person, or angel, or statue, is against the bible.

Nowhere in the bible does it tell you to pray to the saints, or the angels, or anyone but God the Father, or God the Son.

>> No.4625672

>>4625628

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercession_of_saints

It is not just praying to God on behalf of someone else.

more responses of prayer to Saints, lots of scriptural references

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html

Short piece about angels. There are more references to the prayers of the Saints in Revelations.

http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/col218.html

The bible also nowhere states that only the bible is the source of all teaching, by the way. The interpretive tradition is essential. Even you have an interpretive tradition, you didn't learn what you have learned just by reading the bible.

>> No.4625674

Do you think he could use the word logos in the context of greek philosophy? For example as some logical structure that is put in harmony according to nous?

>> No.4626311

>>4625672
A good portion of angelology is missing for Protestants because they don't have the Book of Tobit.

>> No.4626678

http://www.opusangelorum.org/english.html

>> No.4626786

>>4624977
I watch every video they make.

>> No.4626843

>>4623583
Christ is the transcendent Form of the Good, born a man.
"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" doesn't mean saying "I love you Jesus Christ" gets you into heaven when you die.
It means Christ literally was his commandments (show no resistance to one who is evil, love your enemies, love one another as I have loved you, etc.), and that to believe in the truthfulness of his commands is to believe in him.
This is why Matthew says eternal life comes from deeds (whatsoever you did for the least of these my brethren, you did also for me). John says the same thing, just in a more esoteric way (I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me).