Prayer?

[Lionel20]

I haven't visited the site in awhile. I'm sure this topic has been discussed over and over. But I want to engage, re-engage the forum on the issue of prayer in the traditional sense.

I believe in prayer in a sense of communicating with God - the eternal force from which the fundamental forces of the universe derived.

But I struggle to understand the prayer in the traditional ecclesiastical sense. Is it redundant to pray as a loved one is being admitted into the hospital for surgery 'God guide the Surgeons hands. Or give my loved one a speedy recovery'. Does the employ a God who would otherwise be idle? Or what about the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6, "[May] God's will be on earth as it is in heaven?". What does this mean? And is this possible?

What about "I plead the blood of Jesus over my children's room tonight", does that ensure their safety? If Christians really believe that these prayers offer divine protection why do they purchase alarm systems? Why are many US Christians supportive of a Political Party that obsesses over the 2nd Amendment? The Catholic church in particular, from at least 300-400 AD has launched countless military campaigns in the name of Jesus - which seems a contradiction.

Does anyone really believe in conventional prayer?

[Claire Evans]

Lol. Your claim was that, in the Bible, there were no witnesses to Jesus being distressed and kneeling on the ground. I posted scriptures showing the contrary. I'm just saying what the Bible says. I'm not necessarily saying it is proof that that is what happened.

And there were no witnesses. Only in Mark do we hear of a naked man running away and he appears after Judas and the crowd arrive. He has nothing to do with the previous unwitnessed scene.

It looks as though the writers make up what they want and supply words where they choose. It leads one to suppose the whole is fictional. Do ears just get stuck back on again?

Just because this one account was mentioned in just one gospel, doesn't make it untrue. The other gospel writers may have thought it wasn't important enough to include in. John wouldn't have. He was more mystical and did not mind much about history.

However, one has to note that a linen cloth the naked man was wearing is consisting with grave attire. It insinuates he once was dead and was resurrected. I don't know if this really happened or it was a symbolic harbinger for Jesus's resurrection. It matters not to me. However, you are right. It appears as if the naked man arrived at the same time as Judas and the others.

I was looking at Matthew 26: 34-36:

Matthew 26:36-46 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, Sit here while I go over there and pray. 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me. 39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will. 40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour? he asked Peter. 41 Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.

We have two other people, the sons of Zebedee, who accompanied Jesus. The gospel said only the disciples fell asleep. The time frame is also not clear. We see that Jesus asked the Lord that if it was possible, may the cup pass from Him before the disciples fell asleep.

It appears as if Peter could have witnessed this. Jesus did return but it does not mean He returned immediately after saying that. He probably was praying for hours. During that time, the disciples went to sleep including maybe Peter. Peter may have heard Jesus then went to sleep afterwards. Then we have the possibility of the two sons of Zebedee being witnesses to this.



Do severed ears just get stuck back on by putting it to the head? No, but if one accepts Jesus is the Son of God, that should not be a problem for Him.

[marco]

I didn't mean it to be evidence. You just wanted to know what a glorified body meant in Christianity.

This is my view. If the Holy Spirit didn't exist, then the text in the Bible would mean absolutely nothing. You can communicate with spirits.

And there is little wrong with expressing your view. As a little boy I remember writing, under tutorial command, "When Christ rose he had a glorified body." And that was that.

Paul makes his points so vehemently that one would wish to disabuse him of his smug certainty, were he in possession of a glorified body now.

"Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies."

A fine way to talk to people. One of the best things that came from this maniacal assertion is Andr Gide's autobiography: Si le grain ne meurt (lest it die). So it is wrong to say that Paul is useless.

[marco]

[quote="Claire Evans"]

Hello Claire, by reading the words:

39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will. 40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping.

as if they mean the apostles witnessed the agony in the garden, you are disregarding what they say. If they HAD witnessed Jesus, there would be no point in his reprimanding them when he returned to find them sleeping.

But it is a point of tiny significance compared to the miracle that was about to happen in the next few days, the after-effects of which - if not the resurrection itself - were apparently witnessed this time.

[Clownboat]

It would sure be nice if you could offer something other than your religious holy book to suggest that your religious holy book is true.

I'm now as convinced of what you say as you would be if a Muslim quoted from the Qu'ran to you.

Have you ever witnessed a glorified body outside of stories in your religious promotional material? Any reason we should consider those words in your holy book as describing reality and not Paul just creating a religion?

I didn't mean it to be evidence.

Good, but to be clear, your statement that was not evidence was as impressive as a Muslim quoting from the Qu'ran would be for you I would imagine.

You just wanted to know what a glorified body meant in Christianity.

Have you ever witnessed a glorified body outside of stories in your religious promotional material? Any reason we should consider those words in your holy book as describing reality and not Paul just creating a religion?

This is my view. If the Holy Spirit didn't exist, then the text in the Bible would mean absolutely nothing.

I disagree, there can still be value found in some Bible stories with or without a holy spirit.

You can communicate with spirits.

I believe this statement is false. Please provide evidence that this claim is true.

[Clownboat]

Lol. Your claim was that, in the Bible, there were no witnesses to Jesus being distressed and kneeling on the ground. I posted scriptures showing the contrary. I'm just saying what the Bible says. I'm not necessarily saying it is proof that that is what happened.

And there were no witnesses. Only in Mark do we hear of a naked man running away and he appears after Judas and the crowd arrive. He has nothing to do with the previous unwitnessed scene.

It looks as though the writers make up what they want and supply words where they choose. It leads one to suppose the whole is fictional. Do ears just get stuck back on again?

Just because this one account was mentioned in just one gospel, doesn't make it untrue.

Wait a minute. I think we need to establish that any of the gospels are true before you can use such reasoning.

For starters:
- Who wrote the gospels and when?
(Do 'I' know what a rhetorical question is?)

The other gospel writers may have thought it wasn't important enough to include in. John wouldn't have. He was more mystical and did not mind much about history.

You talk as if you know who wrote the gospels. How did you acquire such knowledge? You act as if you were a contemporary. How old are you!

[Claire Evans]

I didn't mean it to be evidence. You just wanted to know what a glorified body meant in Christianity.

This is my view. If the Holy Spirit didn't exist, then the text in the Bible would mean absolutely nothing. You can communicate with spirits.

And there is little wrong with expressing your view. As a little boy I remember writing, under tutorial command, "When Christ rose he had a glorified body." And that was that.

Paul makes his points so vehemently that one would wish to disabuse him of his smug certainty, were he in possession of a glorified body now.

"Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies."

A fine way to talk to people. One of the best things that came from this maniacal assertion is Andr Gide's autobiography: Si le grain ne meurt (lest it die). So it is wrong to say that Paul is useless.

Paul is right. However, if I took the approach of Paul, I would be reprimanded for preaching.

The scripture you quoted comes from 1 Corinthians 15:36. Therefore Paul was addressing the Corinthians.

"Corinth was famous for its intellectual and material prosperity and was honored with being the capitol of Achaia. It also became famous for its corruption. As Guthrie says, Its name became a byword for profligacy.


This is what the Corinthians were all about:

"The Corinthians were focused on external methods of measurement for spirituality. The specific reason for the divisions was that the Corinthians were placing their faith in the wisdom of men. Paul points out that the wisdom of men is foolishness to God (1:25) and their faith should be in the power of God (2:5), not the power of men."

If one is to accept the all knowing Father, would it not be foolish to trust mere men who don't know what's right over the Father Who is all knowing? Who knows what is best for mankind? Paul said it like it was. He did not sugar coat.

Jesus also used the word fool in Matthew 23:


16Woe to you, blind guides! You say, If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath. 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes it sacred? 18And you say, If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.

Yet, again, anyone who trusts in this earth rather than the Father is a fool according to Jesus. He was also addressing the hypocritical Pharisees who were bringing dishonour to the Father.

[Claire Evans]

Hello Claire, by reading the words:

39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will. 40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping.

as if they mean the apostles witnessed the agony in the garden, you are disregarding what they say. If they HAD witnessed Jesus, there would be no point in his reprimanding them when he returned to find them sleeping.

But it is a point of tiny significance compared to the miracle that was about to happen in the next few days, the after-effects of which - if not the resurrection itself - were apparently witnessed this time.

I mentioned that I believe it was only Peter who heard what Jesus said. The rest may have seen His agonized state yet fell asleep anyway. This was hurtful for Jesus because He wanted their comfort. However, He must also have realized that them staying awake with Him all that time would not allay His agony.

[Claire Evans]

Lol. Your claim was that, in the Bible, there were no witnesses to Jesus being distressed and kneeling on the ground. I posted scriptures showing the contrary. I'm just saying what the Bible says. I'm not necessarily saying it is proof that that is what happened.

And there were no witnesses. Only in Mark do we hear of a naked man running away and he appears after Judas and the crowd arrive. He has nothing to do with the previous unwitnessed scene.

It looks as though the writers make up what they want and supply words where they choose. It leads one to suppose the whole is fictional. Do ears just get stuck back on again?

Just because this one account was mentioned in just one gospel, doesn't make it untrue.

Wait a minute. I think we need to establish that any of the gospels are true before you can use such reasoning.

For starters:
- Who wrote the gospels and when?
(Do 'I' know what a rhetorical question is?)

It is not clear who exactly wrote what we having in the Bible today but it is based on what Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote originally. That is what is generally accepted.

Mark is said to have been the earliest gospel and John the latest.

The other gospel writers may have thought it wasn't important enough to include in. John wouldn't have. He was more mystical and did not mind much about history.

You talk as if you know who wrote the gospels. How did you acquire such knowledge? You act as if you were a contemporary. How old are you!

Do I have to be a contemporary to have an indication who wrote the gospels? Were you there when Plato wrote his philosophies? We have to have a yardstick to go by. We need to ask if the gospels based from the namesakes, then who else could have written them?

[Claire Evans]

It would sure be nice if you could offer something other than your religious holy book to suggest that your religious holy book is true.

I'm now as convinced of what you say as you would be if a Muslim quoted from the Qu'ran to you.


Have you ever witnessed a glorified body outside of stories in your religious promotional material? Any reason we should consider those words in your holy book as describing reality and not Paul just creating a religion?

No Christian claims that they need to see a glorified body to believe. If we believe the Holy Spirit exists, then the words in the gospels have been confirmed. It could not have been Paul making a religion because the gospels did not originate with him.

You can communicate with spirits.

I believe this statement is false. Please provide evidence that this claim is true.

In a debate, my statement would not be valid. Don't try it but there are many ways to communicate with spirits like seances and ouija boards. My family has done it.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 52 by marco]


"And there is little wrong with expressing your view. As a little boy I remember writing, under tutorial command, "When Christ rose he had a glorified body." And that was that."

Wonderful that such an amazing quote is still in your memory.

'When Christ rose he had a glorified body' - this is the miracle of Ressurrection, the human, the material body of Christ had become divine and ascended into heaven.
Through this his glorifed humanity we can access the Divinity of God Himself.
This is true Christianity. A living path to God Himself just as it was in the Golden Age.