Necromancy
Douglas Gilliland
I have been wondering about "praying to the dead".
The dictionary definition of necromancy would seem to include that.
Is praying to the dead for help the same as necromancy?
-------
Doug Gilliland
2 Cor 3:17b where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
The Calvary Chapel FUAQ is at: http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
Teresita Mercado
Doug Gilliland wrote:
> Is praying to the dead for help the same as
> necromancy?
It is an an application in practice of the doctrine of the communion of
saints given in the Apostle's Creed which dates back to the Apostles.
Teresita
Douglas Nicholson
> Is praying to the dead for help the same as
> necromancy?
saints given in the Apostle's Creed which dates back to the Apostles.
Douglas Gilliland
Douglas Nicholson wrote
> Some fellowships recite the TAC very often as part of the
> service, which may possible have implications of
> necromancy?
> Douglas
I've never considered the phrase "communion of the saints" to involve prayer
to other dead saints.
In fact, we repeated it weekly in the Lutheran church that I was raised in
and Lutherans reject prayer to dead saints. Hence, I wonder about the
soundness of this interpretation of the creed (I think that the creed itself
is sound).
Douglas Nicholson
Hello Doug,
Douglas Gilliland wrote in message <6hvnet$a...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
>Douglas Nicholson wrote
>
>
>> Some fellowships recite the TAC very often as part of the
>> service, which may possible have implications of
>> necromancy?
>
>> Douglas
>
>I've never considered the phrase "communion of the saints" to involve
prayer
>to other dead saints.
If a fellowship practices necromancy it might.
>In fact, we repeated it weekly in the Lutheran church that I was raised in
>and Lutherans reject prayer to dead saints.
> Hence, I wonder about the
>soundness of this interpretation of the creed (I think that the creed
itself
>is sound).
Don't recall TAC in the Bible anywhere. Wonder who drafted the TAC and why?
Blessings to all
Truly in our Savior Lord Jesus Christ
Douglas Nicholson doug...@ix.netcom.com
Teresita Mercado
Douglas Gilliland wrote:
> I've never considered the phrase "communion
> of the saints" to involve prayer to other dead
> saints.
So you say you believe in the communion of the saints, but it's
communion of the saints Lite, which excludes communion with those saints
that have passed on, despite the victory of the cross that makes those
saints more alive than we are, and closer to us than living Christians
whom you do not hesitate to ask to pray for you.
Teresita
Douglas Nicholson
In response to Teresita Mercado wrote in message
Douglas Gilliland wrote:
> I've never considered the phrase "communion
> of the saints" to involve prayer to other dead
> saints.
>So you say you believe in the communion of the saints, but it's
>communion of the saints Lite, which excludes communion with those saints
>that have passed on,
dead saints are just that DEAD!
> despite the victory of the cross that makes those
>saints more alive than we are, and closer to us than living Christians
>whom you do not hesitate to ask to pray for you.
Hey Doug G! Aren't the dead saints dead or are they more alive than living
Christians?
From my reading and understanding of the Bible. The dead are dead till the
time of the resurrections.
Must have be some wives tale teaching that crept into the church.
Daniel 12:2
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Chuck Fisher
Teresita Mercado wrote:
>Douglas Gilliland wrote:
>> I've never considered the phrase "communion
>> of the saints" to involve prayer to other dead
>> saints.
>
>So you say you believe in the communion of the saints, but it's
>communion of the saints Lite, which excludes communion with those saints
>that have passed on, despite the victory of the cross that makes those
>saints more alive than we are, and closer to us than living Christians
>whom you do not hesitate to ask to pray for you.
Ummm, wouldn't be necromancy if the dead saints communicated
with the living ones?
Sounds like "communion of the saints Lite" anyway, if it is only
one-way communication.
BTW: I think that "communion of the saints," defined as praying
to saints is heresy. (Which means that Doug Gilliland will
come out in favor of it, now.)
Chuck Fisher
--
Teresita Mercado
Douglas Nicholson wrote:
> Don't recall TAC in the Bible anywhere.
Alluded to by St. Paul in Romans 6:17:
"Thanks be to God, though once you were slaves of sin, you sincerely
obeyed that rule of teaching which was imparted to you;"
Traditionally each of the twelve Apostles cotributed one article to the
Creed while filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
Teresita
The Catechism Answer Girl
Teresita Mercado
Douglas Nicholson wrote:
> The dead are dead till the time of the
> resurrections.
Except for the Good Thief: "And Jesus replied, `I assure you: this day
you will be with me in paradise.'" (Luke 23:43)
And also except for Abraham, and Lazarus resting in his bosom, and the
rich man in torment (Luke 16:19-31)
----------------------------
Teresita
Douglas Gilliland
Douglas Nicholson wrote
> Hey Doug G! Aren't the dead saints dead or are they more
> alive than living Christians?
I don't pray to alive or dead saints. Same for both. I can have a common
communion with all saints, alive and otherwise, without praying to them. How
about you?
Teresita Mercado
I think the problem people have with asking dead saints to pray for us
is the "dead" part. But have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the
passage about the bush, how God told him, "I am the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not God of the dead but of
the living. You are greatly misled.
---------------------------------
Teresita
BTW that was a good bible workout on IRC tonight, gentlemen. No trolls,
kicks, bans, or namecalling, I was pleasantly surprised.
Douglas Gilliland
Teresita Mercado wrote
> BTW that was a good bible workout on IRC tonight,
> gentlemen. No trolls, kicks, bans, or namecalling, I was
> pleasantly surprised.
Actually, that's not quite true. I was banned the entire evening. Joe Marino
has shown the he lacks any self control...
Teresita Mercado
Doug G wrote:
> Actually, that's not quite true. I was banned the
> lacks any self-control...
OK, you're right, but I would like to say, sir, that even if you manage
to infiltrate the channel successfully your message is being garbled by
a "Self"-driven monomania, where it should be more of a "Christ"-driven
monomania.
I like being here because my most fruitful bible studies have come from
prayerful and respectful dialogue with Calvary Chapel people at work but
it seems I have popped up in the middle of a family squabble here, and
you know how those things tend to embarrass guests.
Teresita
Douglas Nicholson
In response to Teresita Mercado wrote in message
Douglas Nicholson wrote:
>> The dead are dead till the time of the
>> resurrections.
>Except for the Good Thief: "And Jesus replied, `I assure you: this day
>you will be with me in paradise.'" (Luke 23:43)
Was Jesus dead till the time of His resurrection?
Jesus did assure him that day! The good thief will be with him in paradise,
act the time of the resurrection of course!
>And also except for Abraham, and Lazarus resting in his bosom, and the
>rich man in torment (Luke 16:19-31)
Was this parable or an actual event? Wasn't this Lazarus in this story
describing his time after his time of resurrection (future event) ?
Douglas Gilliland
JMarino516 wrote in message
> THAT is the Gilliland twist. No one HAD to be banned all
> evening. The ban list consists of two addresses that you have
> used for yourself.
I was banned for the entire evening. As usual Joe's grasp on the truth is
quite limited.
> It had nothing to do with self-control.
As does Joe... (have nothing to do with self-control, that is).
> You were banned for trying to avoid the ban imposed by
> another op for your abusive behavior.
HA HA HA.
So I was banned because I used to be banned, but was not banned anymore, so
I needed to be banned?
ROTFL. Marino's grasp on excuses gets slimmer and slimmer...
> You will be welcomed back if and when you repent.
And bend the knee to you??? I'll not join the throng of Joe worshippers.
JMarino516
In article <6i5sdk$9...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, "Douglas Gilliland" <do...@idt.net>
writes:
>Teresita Mercado wrote
>
>> BTW that was a good bible workout on IRC tonight,
>> gentlemen. No trolls, kicks, bans, or namecalling, I was
>> pleasantly surprised.
>
>Actually, that's not quite true. I was banned the entire evening. Joe Marino
>has shown the he lacks any self control...
>
>
THAT is the Gilliland twist. No one HAD to be banned all evening.
The ban list consists of two addresses that you have used for yourself.
It had nothing to do with self-control. You were banned for trying to avoid
the
ban imposed by another op for your abusive behavior. You will be welcomed
back if and when you repent.
Joe
><>
Please visit me at http://members.aol.com/jmarino516/index.html Be blessed!
><>
Ron
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:19:37 -0700, "Douglas Gilliland"
<do...@idt.net> wrote:
>JMarino516 wrote in message
>
>> THAT is the Gilliland twist. No one HAD to be banned all
>> evening. The ban list consists of two addresses that you have
>> used for yourself.
>
>
>I was banned for the entire evening. As usual Joe's grasp on the truth is
>quite limited.
it's not just this evening Doug, as I hear it, you're permabanned.
Congratulations.
>
>> It had nothing to do with self-control.
>
>As does Joe... (have nothing to do with self-control, that is).
I don't see Joe getting banned cause he can't control himself. But
lets see, how many times have I seen you kicked.....hmmmmmm
>
>> You were banned for trying to avoid the ban imposed by
>> another op for your abusive behavior.
>
>HA HA HA.
>
>So I was banned because I used to be banned, but was not banned anymore, so
>I needed to be banned?
Gee Doug are you stupid or can't you read?
>
>ROTFL. Marino's grasp on excuses gets slimmer and slimmer...
As does your grasp on reality. Oh that's right, you haven't had one
since what is it, 1981?
>
>> You will be welcomed back if and when you repent.
>
>And bend the knee to you??? I'll not join the throng of Joe worshippers.
Then why are you moaning and groaning like an imbecile for?
Oh here, I know you're bored, go listen to this, you'll love it.....
www.calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/audio/id/59-jam/3635.ram
JMarino516
In article <6i6gr5$h...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, "Douglas Gilliland" <do...@idt.net>
writes:
>JMarino516 wrote in message
>
>> THAT is the Gilliland twist. No one HAD to be banned all
>> evening. The ban list consists of two addresses that you have
>> used for yourself.
See? MORE of the twist. Terestia was explaining that no one needed to be
added to the ban list or even kicked or even warned! There
are two ipt addresses in the ban list. Both belong to YOU!
>
>I was banned for the entire evening. As usual Joe's grasp on the truth is
>quite limited.
>
>> It had nothing to do with self-control.
>
>As does Joe... (have nothing to do with self-control, that is).
>
yawn.
>> You were banned for trying to avoid the ban imposed by
>> another op for your abusive behavior.
>
>HA HA HA.
>
>So I was banned because I used to be banned, but was not banned anymore, so
>I needed to be banned?
>
You were banned for masking yourself to sneak around an already existing ban.
Dishonesty is a sin, Doug.
>ROTFL. Marino's grasp on excuses gets slimmer and slimmer...
>
Your obvious attempt to twist the truth is what is really funny.
>> You will be welcomed back if and when you repent.
>
>And bend the knee to you??? I'll not join the throng of Joe worshippers.
I am not asking to be worshipped, and it is not only I that needs to hear
you repent. Think about all the folks you attacked, Doug.
Teresita Mercado
Douglas Nicholson wrote:
> Jesus did assure him that day! The good theif
> will be with him in paradise act the time of the
> resurrection of course!
Well, when I read "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in
Paradise." I can't help but think it means what it says.
You seem to be saying it should read, "Amen, I say to you today, you
will be with me in Paradise." And if Christ is God, and if God is not
the Author of confusion, why would He add the phrase, "I say to you
today" if that is redundant? Of course it's today, because "today" is
they day Jesus and the Thief are speaking.
If it was Christ's habit to say "Amen I say to you today" why does He
NOT say in Luke 18:17 "Amen _I say to you today_, whoever does not
accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it." ???
You see how you can use other parts of the Sacred Scripture to let it
interpret itself?
> Was this parable or an actual event? Wasn't this
> Lazarus in this story describing his time after his
> time of resurrection (future event) ?
Parable or actual event, Christ did not teach error.
Lazarus was descibing the present because he was concerned that his five
living brothers would also end up where he was (Luke 16:28)
The Peace of the Lord Jesus Christ Be With You
------------------------------
Teresita
Allen
Wel at least one issue is now settled, Joe must have control of the
Lambs book of life.
Allen
>JMarino516 wrote in message
>
>> THAT is the Gilliland twist. No one HAD to be banned all
>> evening. The ban list consists of two addresses that you have
>> used for yourself.
>
>
>I was banned for the entire evening. As usual Joe's grasp on the truth is
>quite limited.
>
>> It had nothing to do with self-control.
>
>As does Joe... (have nothing to do with self-control, that is).
>
>> You were banned for trying to avoid the ban imposed by
>> another op for your abusive behavior.
>
>HA HA HA.
>
>So I was banned because I used to be banned, but was not banned anymore, so
>I needed to be banned?
>
>ROTFL. Marino's grasp on excuses gets slimmer and slimmer...
>
>> You will be welcomed back if and when you repent.
>
>And bend the knee to you??? I'll not join the throng of Joe worshippers.
>
>
Douglas Gilliland
Ron wrote in message
> I don't see Joe getting banned cause he can't control himself.
> But lets see, how many times have I seen you kcked.....
> hmmmmmm
Now let's just think a bit here, Ron. I know that this may hurt, but try to
bear with me.
I am not an op. As such, I do not have the power to kick or ban in the
group.
Joe is an op. Joe does have the power to kick and ban. In fact, Joe is THE
level 500 op with veto power over all of the other ops. In fact, he's the
only real op that there is, when you think about it that way.
After thinking, does your statement make any sense at all?
>www.calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/audio/id/59-jam/3635.ram
Great introduction to Calvary Chapel...
Ron
On Fri, 1 May 1998 12:05:58 -0700, "Douglas Gilliland" <do...@idt.net>
wrote:
>Ron wrote in message
>The Calvary Chapel FUAQ is at: www.calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/audio/id/59-jam/3635.ram
Yes Doug it makes perfect sense. Joe behaves himself, doesn't insult
people, doesn't taunt people, in general Doug, doesn't make a jerk of
himself. I will give you credit though, I understand you were in there
the other night and behaved yourself. That's a start.
>
JMarino516
In article <6id6es$6...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, "Douglas Gilliland" <do...@idt.net>
writes:
>I am not an op. As such, I do not have the power to kick or ban in the
>group.
>
However, in the groups that you are in and your failed listserve, you ban
me and have banned me with extreme prejudice. I have not treated you
in kind. As a matter of fact, I have unbanned you several times, and let
an unban that I did not agree with stand. I just got back from unbanning you
again because even the bot bans you (are you using cheater software again
or sworn 3 times? Those will get you banned post haste by the bot).
>Joe is an op. Joe does have the power to kick and ban. In fact, Joe is THE
>level 500 op with veto power over all of the other ops. In fact, he's the
>only real op that there is, when you think about it that way.
>
First, I have not overruled the ops on anything, have I. Even when you were
unbanned without repenting (which I think was incorrect), I did not overrule
anyone. Have you noticed the diversity of ops? Not all are CC, are they?
Secondly: I have not had to ban anyone but you. Does that tell you anything?
>After thinking, does your statement make any sense at all?
>
Of course it does. He was saying that I do nothing that would get me
banned. All I have to do to get banned in your rooms is say hello.
Douglas Gilliland
Deu 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard,
or a necromancer.
Deu 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD:
and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from
before thee.
-------
Doug Gilliland
2 Cor 3:17b where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
The Calvary Chapel FUAQ is at: http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
Douglas Nicholson
Hello Doug!
Douglas Gilliland wrote in message <6ilu3r$n...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>...
>Deu 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard,
>or a necromancer.
>Deu 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD:
>and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from
>before thee.
Matthew 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven.
Douglas Nicholson
In response to Teresita Mercado wrote in message
Douglas Nicholson wrote:
>> Jesus did assure him that day! The good theif
>> will be with him in paradise act the time of the
>> resurrection of course!
>You seem to be saying it should read, "Amen, I say to you today, you
>will be with me in Paradise." And if Christ is God, and if God is not
>the Author of confusion, why would He add the phrase, "I say to you
>today"
Because the thief asked Jesus that day!
> if that is redundant?
Not at all
> Of course it's today, because "today" is
>they day Jesus and the Thief are speaking.
Just like the day when a believer is born again, on that day, the believer
will be in paradise with our Lord Jesus Christ. At the time of ressurection.
Dont you belive in the ressurection of believers of our Lord Jesus Christ?
>If it was Christ's habit to say "Amen I say to you today" why does He
>NOT say in Luke 18:17 "Amen _I say to you today_, whoever does not
>accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it." ???
My KJ states 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Jesus is saying dont bring your own wisdom.
I suggest you try it!