Prayers to the dead - not in the Bible

[GingerBeer]

OT 'Canon' was settled long before the nation as a whole rejected Jesus

That's a Jewish myth which suits some people when they want to make absurd claims about the canon of the scriptures and besides the old testament is only a part of the bible and the canon of the bible was not settled before Jesus came - the whole of the "new testament" was written after Jesus ascended back into heaven.

 

[BobRyan]

The7thColporteur said: ↑
OT 'Canon' was settled long before the nation as a whole rejected Jesus

That's a Jewish myth which suits some people

On the contrary - Jewish "myths" can be found in the Jewish apocrypha which the RCC tries to insert into the Jewish Bible - only to find that the Jews don't take RCC ideas for what should be put in their Bible.

Hence even Jerome rejected it when translating the Vulgate.

And so also "actual" Jewish historians like Josephus rejected it and "noted" that the Jewish Bible was firmly canonized with no changes for over 400 years as of the first century A.D.

The RCC refers to actual history as "myth"??

 

[BobRyan]

OT 'Canon' was settled long before the nation as a whole rejected Jesus:

Luke 24:44 KJB - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.​

You may read more here - [Link]

NKJV -
Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

 

[Mountainmike]

Discussing theology on the Internet isn't in the Bible, yet here we are.

Nice one!

 

[BobRyan]

Discussing theology on the Internet isn't in the Bible, .

And it is not "doctrine" -- but "studying doctrine" is in the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

"Prayers to the dead - not in the Bible" The title only applies to those shrunken bibles with a mere 66 books listed in the table of contents.

The so-called "expanded" Bible is the one with extra Jewish books in it - which the Jews themselves admit are not supposed to be there.

I bet it is "so called" by people with only 66 books in their 'bible'.

Or that notice that you can't insert pre-cross non-Christian Jewish books - into the Christian Bible - that even the Jews admit - are not canonical. Even Jerome who did the Latin Vulgate translation admitted that doing so - was error.

The Jews reject Jesus Christ as God the Son so no Christian ought be looking to them to decide the canon of anything.

Catholics did not write the OT or the Jewish apocrypha so no one should be looking to them to decide the Canon of someone else's text.

 

[prodromos]

And it is not "doctrine" -- but "studying doctrine" is in the Bible.

I know about receiving doctrine being in the Bible, but I'm not so sure about "studying doctrine".

 

[☦Marius☦]

David isn't speaking. He's in the grave. The only way he could possibly still speak, is by what is written in the pages of the OT. That still speaks.

1 Kings 2:10 KJB - So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.​

Where is David? Asleep, buried.

Acts 2:29 KJB - Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Acts 2:34 KJB - For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,​

Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, with the other 11, at Pentecost, quoting inspired OT -Psalms 110:1, is clear.

But you don't believe him, whom you say you believe. You believe 'tradition' of men, not found in scripture.

I don't care how old error is, age doesn't sanctify error. I also have quotes that show that Christians did not always believe your 'tradition', but believed what Peter said.

Why not consider LeRoy Edwin Frooms, the conditionalist faith of our fathers, Vol 1 [Link] an Vol 2 [Link].

The original verse I responded to regarding David talks about him crying out from the grave. I said he could only do that if he was still concious, or in sheol.

What "tradition" is Paul talking about? Read the context, its about labouring, not being idle, which example Paul and others had shown them personally by their very lives, but your 'tradition' would make this about all kinds of nonsense not found in scripture, when he told you specifically what the 'tradition' was, active orderly and united labour:

2 Thessalonians 3:6 KJB - Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2 Thessalonians 3:7 KJB - For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;

2 Thessalonians 3:8 KJB - Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

2 Thessalonians 3:9 KJB - Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 KJB - For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:11 KJB - For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

2 Thessalonians 3:12 KJB - Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

2 Thessalonians 3:13 KJB - But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 KJB - And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

2 Thessalonians 3:15 KJB - Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.​

Instead of what it plainly says, your 'traditon' buries the beautiful truth, and what happens when you do that? Lazy pot-bellied illiterate monks, beggin' for bread from house to house as it was/is recorded in actual history. All because they wanted to read something into this text which doesn't actually exist as a possiblity. It wars against such practices as they call 'tradition'. Paul will be your judge, even as Moses will be of the pharisees and their useless and commandment nullifying traditions.

Brother, this is said in "charity" [1 Corinthians 13 KJB]

Whatever you are copying these long passages from, nobody is going to read them because they aren't even comprehensively related to the topic on hand. Even your attempt to claim I don't believe the Bible because I said the "sons of God" were nephalim (which you have yet to actually disprove) is weak at best. Furthermore you ignored the entire post I gave afterward.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Instead of what it plainly says, your 'traditon' buries the beautiful truth, and what happens when you do that? Lazy pot-bellied illiterate monks, beggin' for bread from house to house as it was/is recorded in actual history. All because they wanted to read something into this text which doesn't actually exist as a possiblity. It wars against such practices as they call 'tradition'. Paul will be your judge, even as Moses will be of the pharisees and their useless and commandment nullifying traditions.

Brother, this is said in "charity" [1 Corinthians 13 KJB]

Your description of monks is downright inaccurate and frankly offensive. Go look up something on Orthodox monks before you go making accusations about men I garuntee are more pious then you. Monks on MT Athos pray more than 8 hours a day standing, fast year round, work the rest of the day, and barely sleep when they aren't praising God in the liturgy. They are also entirely self sufficient. Unless you can say the same I'll ask you to kindly keep your offensive bigotry to yourself.

 

[Basil the Great]

I just popped in and will not take the time to read this entire thread. I understand why praying to the dead is controversial, though I see both sides of the issue. However, it does trouble me that so many Christians are against praying for the dead. There is a big difference between the two traditions and there is nothing in Scripture which forbids us from praying for the dead.

 

[☦Marius☦]

The so-called "expanded" Bible is the one with extra Jewish books in it - which the Jews themselves admit are not supposed to be there.



Or that notice that you can't insert pre-cross non-Christian Jewish books - into the Christian Bible - that even the Jews admit - are not canonical. Even Jerome who did the Latin Vulgate translation admitted that doing so - was error.




Catholics did not write the OT or the Jewish apocrypha so no one should be looking to them to decide the Canon of someone else's text.

Jews don't even have a Canon. What are you rambling about. Maccabees are excellent accounts btw

 

[BobRyan]

Jews don't even have a Canon.

yes they do - and it is the same as the OT that is in all Bibles today - only they divide it as 27 books.
What is more their own historian - Josephus points this out long before the first RCC council ever meets.

(And as we saw 2Macc story about "taking up an offering" is not helping the "communion with the dead" idea)

 

[☦Marius☦]

yes they do - and it is the same as the OT that is in all Bibles today - only they divide it as 27 books.
What is more their own historian - Josephus points this out long before the first RCC council ever meets.

Josephus was a historian, not an authority on spiritual matters. OT cannon completely depends on what school of Jewish thought one comes from. There are several. And the councils are not RCC, they are apostolic. The RCC didn't exist until after 1054

 

[GingerBeer]

yes they do - and it is the same as the OT that is in all Bibles today

It (meaning the Tanach of the Jews) is not the same as the old testament in all bibles. It isn't even the same as the OT in the majority of printed bibles. Many bibles are not in English, most are from Catholic and Orthodox traditions and many Protestants have more than 66 books in their printed bibles.

 

[BobRyan]

Josephus was a historian

And he reported the historic fact that the Jewish religious leaders (of that religion) had placed the fixed canonized version of their Bible in the temple and that it had not been changed in that 400 year period of time. Nothing added... nothing removed..

historic fact - is not myth.
Their own spiritual leaders taking action.. not wait for a Catholic to come along and tell them what scripture is or what they should regard as canon. as we both know.

 

[BobRyan]

It (meaning the Tanach of the Jews) is not the same as the old testament in all bibles. It isn't even the same as the OT in the majority of printed bibles. .

It is when you exclude all books from the OT that were not in the Jewish canonized OT -- which is why the Catholic Bible and the Jewish OT was the same until the Protestant reformation -- when that Bible was then protected from further meddling by the Protestant reformation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

"snip"
This whole thread is insincere and made with an rather explicit agenda which is to ridicule and bash the church and her faithful.
Honestly why do you bother?......................

Is it even possible that every thread on the board that does not agree with your POV on all points .. is "insincere"??

When RCs and EO's mention "the church", you know it is going turn into a RC/EO vs Protestant slugfest, especially here on GT, IMHO. Sad but true....

One true church-ism

You know, I was on another forum and visited a thread that had primarily roman catholic and eastern orthodox people in it. Then somebody claimed that there church was the "one true church"
And let me tell you. That thread exploded into a war, a war of insults, where some people said some very VERY not nice things about some other people. You think they were trying to kill each other with words.

Tell me, why do some christians need there church to be the "one true church"?

...........................................

 

[GingerBeer]

It is when you exclude all books from the OT that were not in the Jewish canonized OT

What an absurd thing to say. If you're keen on Jewish holy books then why accept the 27 canonical books of the new testament? The Jews of today reject all 27 of them as well as rejecting Jesus Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

I just popped in and will not take the time to read this entire thread. I understand why praying to the dead is controversial, though I see both sides of the issue. However, it does trouble me that so many Christians are against praying for the dead.

There is a big difference between the two

Certainly I agree that there is a difference between praying TO the dead "communion with the dead" - and praying TO God FOR the dead (on behalf of the dead)

I pray to God FOR the people in syria suffering from chemical weapons attacks - but I am not "in communion with them" -- I don't interact with them or talk to them and they don't talk to me.

there is nothing in Scripture which forbids us from praying for the dead.

There is no example of it in scripture and nothing in scripture saying that anything would be gained by it.

What is more - when you read the OP in detail. you see that scripture shows us a dormant state for those that have died. and even the 2Macc text quoted on this thread states that no benefit accrues to the dead by praying FOR them apart from the future resurrection. is the "best" we have had presented so far.

 

[jamesbond007]

Boy, this is a tough one. Even if 958 Communion with the dead isn't in the Bible, are you saying we shouldn't pray for the dead or to the dead when we visit grave sites? I remember having a wall hanging in the family that said, "May you get to heaven a half hour before the devil knows you're dead.”