Praying to Saints

prodromos said:

Firstborn son is a Jewish term regarding inheritance. Every only born son is also a firstborn son.

Click to expand...

That would be like saying I won FIRST place and yet I was the only one in the race. But if it makes you feel better to admit to illogical statements, then just feel free to believe such a contradiction.

[QUOTE="Jason0047, post: 72505997, member: 356113"
But is the Catholic church the one we see described in the New Testament? Do we see Paul and Peter praying to Mary and the dead saints? Do we see Barnabas going to to Peter to confess his sins?
Do we see James promote the use of statues as long as we do not worship them? Where is the pope like figure being lifted up in the New Testament? None of these things can be found when reading our Bibles. Hence, why you need additional words added to the Bible to make them so. But are these added words divine in origin like the Bible? Did you check these added words to see if they are divine in origin?[/QUOTE]

Your assumption in these remarks is "Sola Scriptura". An assumption that is never proved.
More specifically you demand explicit instances for anything "Catholic"......but Protestants ignore "explicit" "Catholic "texts all the time...
eg
(1)John 6 "Bread of life discourse" Protestants introduced a figurative interpretation that has NO support in scripture nor in The Church Fathers.


(2)"Thou are Peter...etc (Matt 16:18-19 cf Isaiah 22:19-23)
When Peter acknowledges Jesus as "The Davidic King-Messiah" , Jesus plainly lockstep references Isaiah's reference to the appointing of The Davidic Prime Minister/Steward, who ruled in the King's absence & carried The Keys of The Kingdom! This was a permanent & SUCCESIVE OFFICE.
How plain could it be?... but (in the past) Protestant scholars have invented all kinds of gymastics to "explain it away". They now acknowledge Peter is The Rock renamed by Jesus for this role.

Your related assumption is that today's Church must look exactly like the Church of Acts in a Reductionist manner......but even in this you are highly selective. (see below)

Christ described His Church/Kingdom as "A mustard seed that would grow into the largest of trees".
Because Protestants have made an idol out of The Bible they are condemned to forever seek the seed instead of The Tree.
Protestants are forever wanting to re-create The Acorn instead of sheltering under Christ's Oaktree.
But The Messiah....God's last Word to Man.....succeeded!

Even secular observers remark on the absolutely unique nature of the 2000-year-old institution of The Catholic Church; Present in every nation, vast but unified, outliving Empires; stalwart in doctrine, praying the identical divine liturgy worldwide every day. Unequalled (in breadth & depth) of Theology, Doctrinal Coherence, History, Reason, Spirituality, Saintly-witness, Mysticism, Scriptural Studies, Miracles, Philosophy, Education, Healthcare, Music, Art , Architecture and more.
Is she not the fulfilment of all the Messianic prophesies?
Is she is what she claims to be?

And what is the reason for the false-histories, misrepresentations, hatred, prejudice & vitriol against her? ( I have fequently been told online that the wonderful, beautiful. holy faith that I know.....is Satanic, Demonic, Pagan & Cultic.)


She is much too impressive, and too well-connected to the historical Jesus, to ignore....
So perhaps, hatred and thinking "(She) casts out devils by the power of Beelzebul" is the only defense against her motherly embrace.

-------------------------------

But OK .....Let's look at Acts and meet you on your own invalid turf..

The Book of Acts shows The Catholic Church & the OPPOSITE of Protestantism.

(1)The Apostles, and those they ordained, preached from an ORAL TRADITION. There was NO BIBLE.

(2)(Acts 2:42) "And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."
There you have it! The oral tradition teachings & The Mass.

(3)They taught "with AUTHORITY" as Jesus sent them "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

(4)They brooked no opposition & NO DIVISIONS

(5)They were sacramental using materials like water for baptism

(6)They used sacramentals/relics doing miracles through Aprons & Handkerchiefs of Paul & Peter's shadow.

(7)They were a Conciliar Church

When the first major issue of contention arose in the Church of Acts ("Must Gentile converts observe the Jewish Law?") what did they do? Peter, the Apostles & Elders had a Council at Jerusalem(chapter 15). They discussed; and made a decision of what was required; NOT BASED ON SCRIPTURE, but solely ON THEIR AUTHORITY & FAITH TRADITION.

They than sent their decision out to all the Church in a letter. (This was the first Ecumenical Council of The Catholic Church). The same Catholic Church still does this.
This is exactly how they settled the confusion over which writings were inspired & created the Bible.
It was the same Catholic bishops, & the same method, & the same authority.


NOW HERE'S WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO ....... In every local Church they said let's have a "Tanakh (Old Testament) Study". Then they all said "what the spirit is telling ME". Of course the "Spirit" told them all different truthes". So they said "Let's all do our own thing!; It doesn't matter as long as we "love Jesus" or "Have a personal relationship with Jesus" or "are born again" or "speak in tongues". And when we still disagree we can do Church-Splits or Church-Shopping".

The absolute hoot is, these types of Christians claim to be the "biblical" Christians!
Just how do they do it with a straight face?
Do they read the Bible at all?.... or just a few misunderstood anti-catholic proof-texts?

wilts43 said:

Your assumption in these remarks is "Sola Scriptura". An assumption that is never proved.
More specifically you demand explicit instances for anything "Catholic"......but Protestants ignore "explicit" "Catholic "texts all the time...
eg
(1)John 6 "Bread of life discourse" Protestants introduced a figurative interpretation that has NO support in scripture nor in The Church Fathers.

(2)"Thou are Peter...etc (Matt 16:18-19 cf Isaiah 22:19-23)
When Peter acknowledges Jesus as "The Davidic King-Messiah" , Jesus plainly lockstep references Isaiah's reference to the appointing of The Davidic Prime Minister/Steward, who ruled in the King's absence & carried The Keys of The Kingdom! This was a permanent & SUCCESIVE OFFICE.
How plain could it be?... but (in the past) Protestant scholars have invented all kinds of gymastics to "explain it away". They now acknowledge Peter is The Rock renamed by Jesus for this role.

Your related assumption is that today's Church must look exactly like the Church of Acts in a Reductionist manner......but even in this you are highly selective. (see below)

Christ described His Church/Kingdom as "A mustard seed that would grow into the largest of trees".
Because Protestants have made an idol out of The Bible they are condemned to forever seek the seed instead of The Tree.
Protestants are forever wanting to re-create The Acorn instead of sheltering under Christ's Oaktree.
But The Messiah....God's last Word to Man.....succeeded!

Even secular observers remark on the absolutely unique nature of the 2000-year-old institution of The Catholic Church; Present in every nation, vast but unified, outliving Empires; stalwart in doctrine, praying the identical divine liturgy worldwide every day. Unequalled (in breadth & depth) of Theology, Doctrinal Coherence, History, Reason, Spirituality, Saintly-witness, Mysticism, Scriptural Studies, Miracles, Philosophy, Education, Healthcare, Music, Art , Architecture and more.
Is she not the fulfilment of all the Messianic prophesies?
Is she is what she claims to be?

And what is the reason for the false-histories, misrepresentations, hatred, prejudice & vitriol against her? ( I have fequently been told online that the wonderful, beautiful. holy faith that I know.....is Satanic, Demonic, Pagan & Cultic.)


She is much too impressive, and too well-connected to the historical Jesus, to ignore....
So perhaps, hatred and thinking "(She) casts out devils by the power of Beelzebul" is the only defense against her motherly embrace.

-------------------------------

But OK .....Let's look at Acts and meet you on your own invalid turf..

The Book of Acts shows The Catholic Church & the OPPOSITE of Protestantism.

(1)The Apostles, and those they ordained, preached from an ORAL TRADITION. There was NO BIBLE.

(2)They taught "with AUTHORITY" as Jesus sent them "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

(3)They brooked no opposition & NO DIVISIONS

(4)They were sacramental using materials like water for baptism

(5)They used sacramentals/relics doing miracles through Aprons & Handkerchiefs of Paul & Peter's shadow.

(6)They were a Conciliar Church

When the first major issue of contention arose in the Church of Acts ("Must Gentile converts observe the Jewish Law?") what did they do? Peter, the Apostles & Elders had a Council at Jerusalem(chapter 15). They discussed; and made a decision of what was required; NOT BASED ON SCRIPTURE, but solely ON THEIR AUTHORITY & FAITH TRADITION.

They than sent their decision out to all the Church in a letter. (This was the first Ecumenical Council of The Catholic Church). The same Catholic Church still does this.
This is exactly how they settled the confusion over which writings were inspired & created the Bible.
It was the same Catholic bishops, & the same method, & the same authority.


NOW HERE'S WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO ....... In every local Church they said let's have a "Tanakh (Old Testament) Study". Then they all said "what the spirit is telling ME". Of course the "Spirit" told them all different truthes". So they said "Let's all do our own thing!; It doesn't matter as long as we "love Jesus" or "Have a personal relationship with Jesus" or "are born again" or "speak in tongues". And when we still disagree we can do Church-Splits or Church-Shopping".

The absolute hoot is, these types of Christians claim to be the "biblical" Christians!
Just how do they do it with a straight face?
Do they read the Bible at all?.... or just a few misunderstood anti-catholic proof-texts?

Click to expand...

This thread is not about Sola Scriptura but it is ultimately about "Why should Catholics pray to saints when they can just pray to God alone?" Please stick to the topic please. Thank you.

If you are interested as to why I think the RCC is clearly unbiblical, you can check out my statement in this thread here:

*NOT a Debate* Which Catholic doctrine do you object to the most?

Please take note that it is not a debate thread. So please do not debate me on the points I made. I am merely showing why I think Catholicism is not true.

Jason0047 said:

Show me in Scripture where a one and only son (with no brothers) is called a "FIRSTborn son." Logic dictates that they are firstborn because there is a second born son, etc. They are the first in sequence of an order of a numbering system. It is illogical to say I am the firstborn son if I am only child. First implies that there is a second or more in number.

Click to expand...

Wrong .....that may be habitual in English......but, if we had a venerable custom where "the first son born" was sanctified in a very special way we might use it, even where there was no other issue.
You are imposing English custom & useage on ancient Jewish writings.
This ignores of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20).

Mountainmike said:

Ask apostle Paul...

Click to expand...

since I don't pray to those who have died perhaps you could ask him for me and tell me what he says. This question again seems to have been avoided... so i'll ask again, what is the value of praying to these saints?

Jason0047 said:

This thread is not about Sola Scriptura but it is ultimately about "Why should Catholics pray to saints when they can just pray to God alone?" Please stick to the topic please. Thank you.

If you are interested as to why I think the RCC is clearly unbiblical, you can check out my statement in this thread here:

*NOT a Debate* Which Catholic doctrine do you object to the most?

Please take note that it is not a debate thread. So please do not debate me on the points I made. I am merely showing why I think Catholicism is not true.

Click to expand...

My post was about much more than your SS assumption.
I did meet you on your turf re The Church in Acts.
Did you even read it?
I also challenged you on the "selectivity" of Protestants using scripture literally or figuratively in accordance with fitting their tradition.

DamianWarS said:

since I don't pray to those who have died perhaps you could ask him for me and tell me what he says. This question again seems to have been avoided... so i'll ask again, what is the value of praying to these saints?

Click to expand...

What is the value of "loving one another"?

wilts43 said:

Wrong .....

Click to expand...

Statements like this always remind me of Donald Trump in his presidential debate. So thank you for making me smile this morning.

You said:

that may be habitual in English......but, if we had a venerable custom where "the first son born" was sanctified in a very special way we might use it, even where there was no other issue.
You are imposing English custom & useage on ancient Jewish writings.
This ignores of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12).

Click to expand...

Okay. I will indulge you on this particular point because I find it interesting that people deny the basic logic of words.

Alright, to address Exodus 13:2 and Numbers 3:12:

Well, nowhere does Exodus 13:2 and Numbers 3:12 suggest that the firstborn son is an only son. God was talking about how the father was to treat the firstborn son in a sequence of their many sons. It was common for the Jews to have more than just one son (unlike today). Nobody just intended to have one son back then.

You said:

Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20).

Click to expand...

This verse proves that the firstborn son is a son in a series of other sons that followed.

"...All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty." (Exodus 34:20).

wilts43 said:

My post was about much more than your SS assumption.
I did meet you on your turf re The Church in Acts.
Did you even read it?
I also challenged you on the "selectivity" of Protestants using scripture literally or figuratively in accordance with fitting their tradition.

Click to expand...

But what is the thread topic about?

Jason0047 said:

Show me in Scripture where a one and only son (with no brothers) is called a "FIRSTborn son."

Click to expand...

Numbers 3:40

Since it usually requires a bit more than 9 months between the birth of the firstborn and any subsequent child, any firstborn son that is a month old, is also an only born son.

I wonder if you will admit you were wrong and apologise?

marineimaging said:

Gospel of John Chapter 21:
[24] This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
[25] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

I think that Gospel cleary says that the Bible does NOT contain all the Jesus did, for sure. And, yet, I have never found something in life that I could not find covered in the Word of God, KJV, Genesis to Revelation. Nothing.

Click to expand...

(24)John is referring to his Gospel.....not "The Bible"
"The Bible" is a highly-selective compilation made 350 years later by The Catholic Church, to regulate which books could be read from in The Holy Mass.

A few things not covered by The Bible......

(1)Which books are "God-breathed" and should be in The Bible?

(2)The Trinity

(3)The Hypostatic Union

(4)Stem Cell Research

(5)Artificial Contraception

prodromos said:

Numbers 3:40

And the Lord said to Moses, “Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names.​

Since it usually requires a bit more than 9 months between the birth of the firstborn and any subsequent child, any firstborn son that is a month old, is also an only born son.

I wonder if you will admit you were wrong and apologise?

Click to expand...

Again, this is stated with the intention that the Israelites were going to have more than one son. The Israelites did not intend to just have one son back then. They prided themselves on having many sons and not just one. God here is talking in perspective of their intention of having many sons and not just one. Again, you cannot say that you won FIRST place if you are the only one in the race anymore than a son can be the FIRSTborn son if the father had no other sons. It is an illogical statement.

In other words, God is saying when you have a series of sons: You should follow these set of instructions for your firstborn son. For no Israelite back then just planned to have one son. God knew this, and He spoke from that perspective.

Rather blessed are those who hear and obey God.

Jason0047 said:

But what is the thread topic about?

Click to expand...

I am responding to remarks of yours
It is too late to hide behind "the topic"
You have disparaged & flagrantly misrepresented Christ's Catholic Church (eg Post 475).
You are, in effect, demanding the right to insult Christ's Church, on various grounds unrelated to the topic, and then refuse to repond to corrections because they are "off-topic"

Jason0047 said:

Again, this is stated with the intention that the Israelites were going to have more than one son. The Israelites did not intend to just have one son back then. They prided themselves on having many sons and not just one. God here is talking in perspective of their intention of having many sons and not just one. Again, you cannot say that you won FIRST place if you are the only one in the race anymore than a son can be the FIRSTborn son if the father had no other sons. It is an illogical statement.

In other words, God is saying when you have a series of sons: You should follow these set of instructions for your firstborn son. For no Israelite back then just planned to have one son. God knew this, and He spoke from that perspective.

Click to expand...

Regardless of your opinion, the son of the widow in Luke 7:11-17 would still have been her firstborn son as per Numbers 3:40.

I guess your apology will not be forthcoming. I expected no less. I will leave you to hide behind your "logic"

W2L said:

Rather blessed are those who hear and obey God.

Click to expand...

Which Mary did.

prodromos said:

Which Mary did.

Click to expand...

Me too. But please dont pray to me or make a statue of me.

prodromos said:

Regardless of your opinion, the son of the widow in Luke 7:11-17 would still have been her firstborn son as per Numbers 3:40.

I guess your apology will not be forthcoming. I expected no less.

Click to expand...

But nowhere does Luke 7:11-17 say that the one and only son is the firstborn son. That is merely your assumption upon the text.

As for Numbers 3:40:

Well, Numbers 3:40 is again talking about the firstborn in a series of many sons because GOD knew that the Israelites intended to have more than just one son because nobody intended to have just one son back then. Nowhere does Numbers 3:40 say that you take your firstborn sons who are only childs and do such and such with them. You have to force that interpretation upon the text in order to make it work. Again, you cannot say that you won FIRST place if you are the only one in the race. Think about it. What you propose is illogical.

Jason0047 said:

Again, this is stated with the intention that the Israelites were going to have more than one son. The Israelites did not intend to just have one son back then. They prided themselves on having many sons and not just one. God here is talking in perspective of their intention of having many sons and not just one. Again, you cannot say that you won FIRST place if you are the only one in the race anymore than a son can be the FIRSTborn son if the father had no other sons. It is an illogical statement.

In other words, God is saying when you have a series of sons: You should follow these set of instructions for your firstborn son. For no Israelite back then just planned to have one son. God knew this, and He spoke from that perspective.

Click to expand...

But the text doesn't say that.
You are adding to it.
Do you give Catholics the same leeway?
No, you demand explicitness.
And I have cited examples to you where Catholics follow scripture & Protestants do not.
Do you not see you are "interpreting" scripture "according to your tradition"
As we all do.
But The Catholic Tradition is The Apostolic Tradition. It is the very organism founded by Jesus on Peter .....grown huge....but the very same organism.

wilts43 said:

But the text doesn't say that.
You are adding to it.
Do you give Catholics the same leeway?
No, you demand explicitness.
And I have cited examples to you where Catholics follow scripture & Protestants do not.
Do you not see you are "interpreting" scripture "according to your tradition"
As we all do.
But The Catholic Tradition is The Apostolic Tradition. It is the very organism founded by Jesus on Peter .....grown huge....but the very same organism.

Click to expand...

You see what you want to see in Scripture and ignore reality. For would you say that you can be FIRST place if you are the only one in the race?

I also could not say I am the firstborn if I was the only son in the family. It would be an illogical statement. You can only be first if you there is a second, third, etc. Stop and think about it.