Necromancy is calling dead people to actually return to the earth in the present time. Play there as you wish, but I'm not going near it. Before making such an accusation, perhaps call to mind the Transfiguration...and then mind the tongue.If Scripture was to condemn washing dishes without touching them, it would be, so ridiculous. Scripture does, OTOH, forbid necromancy, so why dabble in talking with the dead?
Rather, those in God do not violate the will of God. The idea of God violating himself makes no sense.But while opening up to the Holy Spirit, one must at the same time remember that He will not violate the Word of God. If you find that limiting, watch out.
Matthew 7:Pass. It is like trying to explain in Swahili why rocks are so soft. First untie your own knots, and then perhaps there is something to discuss.
And here I was earlier this morning musing today at how readily you miss the narrow gate...too frightened to enter in.IOW, why delve into things that are suspect? A snake may not bite you right away.
Hear nothing good, see nothing good, speak nothing good. Just stick your head in the sand and hope God will forget about His instructions to James 1 and Moroni 10.
You're mixing images. On the one hand, you assure me that extra-Biblical church tradition has authority almost, if not totally, equal with Scripture, or even superior, while on the other, here you are asserting that the path to God is narrow and not many will find it. If you think the path to God REQUIRES Catholic church tradition in addition to the Bible itself, you have a real problem.And here I was earlier this morning musing today at how readily you miss the narrow gate...too frightened to enter in.
The blessings and direction God gave Adam didn’t help Noah build the ark. Noah’s revelations didn’t give Abraham the prophecy to bring the Abraham Covenant to the world. The prophetic Abrahamic Covenant didn’t give Moses the Ten Commandments and bring Israel out of bondage. And Moses didn’t give the world the words of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The problem with the Catholic Church is tradition is not the process of revelation and prophecy. This instead is the sign of apostasy and no spirit of prophecy. Not that new light and prophecy can’t be given. Nothing in the Bible says that.You're mixing images. On the one hand, you assure me that extra-Biblical church tradition has authority almost, if not totally, equal with Scripture, or even superior, while on the other, here you are asserting that the path to God is narrow and not many will find it. If you think the path to God REQUIRES Catholic church tradition in addition to the Bible itself, you have a real problem.
Never crossed my mind. Does it seem odd it did cross yours?If you think the path to God REQUIRES Catholic church tradition in addition to the Bible itself, you have a real problem.
I like your angle. It’s not as complete as mine but on the same concept. The only thing is that I’d say the concepts like praying for the dead is doctrine and not tradition.Never crossed my mind. Does it seem odd it did cross yours?
My point is that God is in our midst. If you lived in the time of the Apostles (no Gospels yet) and one of them told you about the Transfiguration, would you have cautioned him about Necromancy? When they prayed for the dead as was the tradition in their day, would you have told them you disapproved of that. When they pointed out 2 Maccabees, would you have told them you don't consider Maccabees scripture? Or...perhaps you hold no belief that God is truly in our midst and is God of the living (including Abraham) just as he was in Jesus' day?
As I said before, your belief in both God and scripture is minuscule. How can one see God in scripture and be blind to him in every day life today?
Of course not, because that came from the Holy Spirit, not a dead ancestor.Never crossed my mind. Does it seem odd it did cross yours?
My point is that God is in our midst. If you lived in the time of the Apostles (no Gospels yet) and one of them told you about the Transfiguration, would you have cautioned him about Necromancy?
If I was there and they showed me where God had commanded it, I would look to understand why He forbade talking with the dead on one hand while commanding it on the other.When they prayed for the dead as was the tradition in their day, would you have told them you disapproved of that.
Having today's perspective or that day's?When they pointed out 2 Maccabees, would you have told them you don't consider Maccabees scripture?
And again with projecting things on me.Or...perhaps you hold no belief that God is truly in our midst and is God of the living (including Abraham) just as he was in Jesus' day?
I'm not, I'm merely looking to ground everything in Scripture and not man's traditions.As I said before, your belief in both God and scripture is minuscule. How can one see God in scripture and be blind to him in every day life today?
Abraham and Elijah were "dead" ancestors. Peter, James, and John were just men of their present day. If you were in their present day, you would be presenting to them the same points you are presenting to me (where is it in scripture). You would no more accept that the Holy Spirit was upon what them and what they experienced then that you accept that the Holy Spirit is upon my (and others') experiences in your own day. If you call "Necromancy" on me (and others), I am certain you would call "Necromancy" on them.Of course not, because that came from the Holy Spirit, not a dead ancestor.
Again, you change what was actually forbidden and claim something entirely different is forbidden. In the Old Testament it was a medium--through demonic power--who said they could call a person back to earth in physical form to speak to a third party.If I was there and they showed me where God had commanded it, I would look to understand why He forbade talking with the dead on one hand while commanding it on the other.
Having the perspective of people down through time until Martin Luther, a man in the sixteenth century who through out Biblical books, set up the new tradition of ignoring those who passed on. Why should anyone follow your tradition, one that ignores scripture that Martin Luther--a man of the sixteenth century--dismissed?Having today's perspective or that day's?
A question to you projects nothing. By definition, it is waiting for a response. Now here is a projection: It seems to me that whenever I present a logical "either/or" to you, it makes you uncomfortable and you slip out of it by changing the legitimate question to a "projection".And again with projecting things on me.
Starting with Martin Luther's tradition of simply dismissing scripture that addresses praying for those who have passed on?I'm not, I'm merely looking to ground everything in Scripture and not man's traditions.
You're equating the Transfiguration, a unique event in which Yeshua appeared with Moses, NOT Abraham (might want to check into that) with the practice of speaking with the dead? That's pretty sad.Abraham and Elijah were "dead" ancestors. Peter, James, and John were just men of their present day. If you were in their present day, you would be presenting to them the same points you are presenting to me (where is it in scripture). You would no more accept that the Holy Spirit was upon what them and what they experienced then that you accept that the Holy Spirit is upon my (and others') experiences in your own day. If you call "Necromancy" on me (and others), I am certain you would call "Necromancy" on them.
You do not see those who have passed on as living.
Quote for me the Scripture, preferably from the King James, that "addresses praying for those who have passed on".Starting with Martin Luther's tradition of simply dismissing scripture that addresses praying for those who have passed on?
It's an invalid question, as I have never intimated that God is not with us when we pray. Why do I have to state such obvious things?A question to you projects nothing. By definition, it is waiting for a response. Now here is a projection: It seems to me that whenever I present a logical "either/or" to you, it makes you uncomfortable and you slip out of it by changing the legitimate question to a "projection".
I would like to see the Scripture that Luther "dismissed". And you keep referencing tradition, as if it has the same authority as actual Scripture.Having the perspective of people down through time until Martin Luther, a man in the sixteenth century who through out Biblical books, set up the new tradition of ignoring those who passed on. Why should anyone follow your tradition, one that ignores scripture that Martin Luther--a man of the sixteenth century--dismissed?
