Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe prayer can happen anywhere. (I've prayed while on the toilet) but that doesn't make the place a house of prayer.So no praying goes on in the Vatican ?.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I believe prayer can happen anywhere. (I've prayed while on the toilet) but that doesn't make the place a house of prayer.So no praying goes on in the Vatican ?.
So, the church in the Vatican is not a "house of prayer", iyo?I believe prayer can happen anywhere. (I've prayed while on the toilet) but that doesn't make the place a house of prayer.
If you are praying in a house then its a house of prayer, so there.I believe prayer can happen anywhere. (I've prayed while on the toilet) but that doesn't make the place a house of prayer.
I believe this comes down to a matter of sanctification. The temple in Jerusalem was sanctioned by God to be a house of prayer. I have no information as to whether that has happened with the Vatican. It would seem reasonable to view the Vatican as sanctified by the presence of the pope but my understanding is that it is also used for church business. However there may be a house of prayer inside the Vatican separate from the business offices. That is the way it is with the protestant church. within the edifice there may be a sanctuary and a business office and sometimes a room for socialization. However even the temple in Jerusalem had its divisions. The business of money changing took place outside the sanctuary there. I believe Jesus had more of a problem with the way people were treated than with what they were doing. So even though the outer courts were places of business in the temple it was still inconsistent with the temple's purpose to be mistreating people.So, the church in the Vatican is not a "house of prayer", iyo?
So, do you honestly believe that exchanges of money are not found in pretty much all churches? And didn't Paul raise money for the Jerusalem church?I believe this comes down to a matter of sanctification. The temple in Jerusalem was sanctioned by God to be a house of prayer. I have no information as to whether that has happened with the Vatican. It would seem reasonable to view the Vatican as sanctified by the presence of the pope but my understanding is that it is also used for church business. However there may be a house of prayer inside the Vatican separate from the business offices. That is the way it is with the protestant church. within the edifice there may be a sanctuary and a business office and sometimes a room for socialization. However even the temple in Jerusalem had its divisions. The business of money changing took place outside the sanctuary there. I believe Jesus had more of a problem with the way people were treated than with what they were doing. So even though the outer courts were places of business in the temple it was still inconsistent with the temple's purpose to be mistreating people.
Lu 19:46 saying unto them, It is written, And my house shall be a house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of robbers.
So, do you honestly believe that exchanges of money are not found in pretty much all churches? And didn't Paul raise money for the Jerusalem church?
BTW, the Luke citation refers to the fact that there was a rip-off on exchanging Roman currency for what would be allowed to be used at the Temple, and this was a form of Roman taxation to especially pay for their projects.
Since my wife is Catholic and I attend mass weekly with her, I have not been in any RCC church that charges dues. I do know that some in the past would expect at least a certain amount, depending on one's income, which is at least somewhat understandable in order to keep some people from freeloading.i believe it has not been my experience that churches rob people. Anyplace I have been money was freely given. On the other hand I have heard of Roman Catholic churches charging dues.
I believe he solicited money for ministerial purposes but those solicited were free to give or not give..
How can you believe things like a man coming back from the dead, bringing a corpse back to life, walking on water, instantly healing the sick and disabled, changing the weather, ascending to heaven (did he float up into the air or what?), etc. literally happened, as historical events?
Seriously. This perplexes me. If someone was literally doing that stuff, it would be the biggest thing in the history of the world. Corpses coming back to life and walking around! But the only writings about are mythological writings from Christians, decades later at best. No one else noticed? Everyone just forgot? That's just irrational. If you make the claims that those things literally happened, I would expect some rather amazing evidence. But, we have nothing. What's going on here?
Now, if you take these things as metaphor or otherwise non-literally, that's fine, but this thread isn't directed towards that crowd.