saints of this and that (moved from GT)

[Dorothea]

It seems there is a confusion on "praying to 'dead' Christians."

Pray means to ask, and in some instances, it's been said to ask someone to save you. Now, isn't that even more controversial? It is if you only understand these term in one way or definition. The word saved in the bible is used in different ways.

So, this is what it's like when we ask the Theotokos or other Saints to pray for us:

Most Holy Theotokos, please pray for my son.

Me to a friend - "Would you please pray for my son."

I don't see a difference. And they are also praying with us.

It's not about some Saint taking the place of praying to God. We pray together to God, and I pray alone to God most of the time - like 98% of the time. Asking others to pray for my family is the other 2% of the time.

I hope this break down in explanation helps some.

 

[Chrysostoma]

Daydreamer, I have a question for you. When you refer to the authority of Scripture, I am assuming that you are referring to both the Old and New Testament. Can you tell me who were the men who decided which books were to be in the New Testament canon? If so, can you tell me what these same men believed about asking for the intercession of saints? I'm not trying to be snarky; I used to be a Sola Scriptura Protestant myself, and I had a real problem with the idea of people asking for intercession from saints who had passed from this life into the presence of God. The answer to my two questions is important, because if it can be demonstrated that the men who canonized the New Testament strongly held to beliefs that you feel are not supported by the Bible, then there must be a really good reason. In Christ,

Hannah

Sent from my iPhone using CF

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You are talking about the Final Judgment and His Second Coming when all will reunite with their bodies that are in laying reposed (the bodies) at that time, while the souls are waiting for His Second Coming. These are two different events. We are in the end times - the millennium - between His first and second comings. You are talking about what happens at His Second Coming and Judgment Day - the Final Resurrection, as I explained. The dead (meaning those who've physically died on the earth before His second coming) will arise first and reunite with their bodies, while those still alive on the earth when He comes in Glory to Judge the Living and the dead (again, meaning those who have physically died before His second coming). All souls/spirits will reunite with their bodies in a glorified state at that time. And that is when the final judgment - the separation of the goats and sheep happen. In the meantime, those who are waiting for that time are in Paradise or in Hades. I don't want to get into all the meaning of the supposed "places" of Paradise and Hades. Anyway, I hope that helps to explain where I'm coming from.

If you claim so.

Uh....that's not what the story means, daydreamer. The fact that the rich man away from Paradise in Hades could still talk to Abraham - hear and see him, who is considered in Paradise, is something right there. It also discounts the fact that nobody is conscious after they die physically. What Abraham was saying was that his brothers will not believe. They do not have the ears to hear nor the eyes to see spiritually, so it didn't matter if Moses himself was standing there talking to his brothers, they wouldn't believe him.

I don't understand the conversation, we're speaking about us Christians talking to dead Christians. The story in Luke shows that the dead is communicating with each and and at no point does it show that the dead is communicating with the living, so I'm not even sure, what this conversation is supposed to mean.

We're not legalistic. We don't need to consult documents all the time to realize that when one is in the presence of God, one's faculties are enhanced. Even when one is filled with His Grace for a short period of time, one can experience this. It is so in His Saints through their experience of the Holy Spirit working in them. You think because most spiritual and miraculous personal experiences aren't all accounted for, they cannot be true? You need a book to tell you what or how to experience God? Do you not have a close and loving relationship with Him already? Even with our limitations, do we not feel His Presence? How much more so when there isn't the limitation, but we are there with Him fully when we leave this earth?

I'm sorry, when it comes to scripture, I don't start believing things because I think that's how it should happen. People seem to think that "Oh, God can do anything so therefore what I think should be done is what is actually being doing". And while it's true that God can do anything, it doesn't mean that God does everything that we think of. If God wanted us to know that we should ask for those who have passed on to intercede for us, I'm pretty sure He would have told us. Otherwise, we're just creating more traditions and we're making God say things that He didn't say. The Apostle Paul warns us not to think beyond what is written in 1 Corinthians 4:6, and I'll take that advice.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Daydreamer, I have a question for you. When you refer to the authority of Scripture, I am assuming that you are referring to both the Old and New Testament. Can you tell me who were the men who decided which books were to be in the New Testament canon? If so, can you tell me what these same men believed about asking for the intercession of saints? I'm not trying to be snarky; I used to be a Sola Scriptura Protestant myself, and I had a real problem with the idea of people asking for intercession from saints who had passed from this life into the presence of God. The answer to my two questions is important, because if it can be demonstrated that the men who canonized the New Testament strongly held to beliefs that you feel are not supported by the Bible, then there must be a really good reason. In Christ,

Hannah

Sent from my iPhone using CF

I'm going to say this first and foremost, I don't know what beliefs were held when the Scriptures were bound into one singular book...but I do know that my beliefs are coming from those Scriptures. It doesn't matter what those men held when they bound the Scriptures. Those who bound the Scriptures didn't write the Scriptures. The Scriptures were written way before 314AD...it was written by inspired men, through the Holy Spirit, chosen to write what God wanted to communicate to people. Those writers had first hand account, they were eye witnesses to things that were going on in both the Old an New Testament. The Apostles and the disciples walked with God, they knew His teachings, they were given the Holy Spirit for it to bring into remembrance all things. That is what we read when we read the Old and New Testament, it's not a made-up product from those who canonized scripture in 314AD. Those men's commonly held beliefs were not canonized, the Scriptures were.

That is a powerful thing, to know that God's word will by no means pass away. The same book of Isaiah that Christ read in the synagogues, is the same book of Isaiah that we have in our book today (though, ours is not all the way complete and we know this because of the Dead Sea Scrolls). The Letters that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, is what we are reading, minus the 3rd Letter of Corinthians because 2 Corinthians speaks of a letter before it--and it's not the first, but if God wanted us to know what was in that 3rd letter, we would had a 3rd letter. But God saw fit, to chose men that He wanted to canonized His Scripture and that Scripture is what teaches us our faith, it is not the men who canonized it. Scripture teaches us about Him, about His will for us, about His Son's death and everything He saw fit that we needed to know.

 

[Tzaousios]

If you claim so.

Which amounts to rhetorical handwaving. When you dismiss what people say out of hand, is it any wonder that they believe you don't care a wit about historical interpretations?

I don't understand the conversation, we're speaking about us Christians talking to dead Christians.

Once again, that construction that posits people praying to propped up corpses and bones, in the same manner that they supposedly pray to statues.

I'm sorry, when it comes to scripture, I don't start believing things because I think that's how it should happen.

Where has anyone said that they reject Scripture and rely instead on "how they think it should happen"? More false dichotomies.

People seem to think that "Oh, God can do anything so therefore what I think should be done is what is actually being doing". And while it's true that God can do anything, it doesn't mean that God does everything that we think of.

A common rhetorical trope that is deployed against Protestants is that they confine almighty God to a book. What do you expect people to think when you set up statements like this?

It appears that God is perfectly capable of doing only things of which Protestants can conceive according to Sola Scriptura. If it is something of which Catholics and Orthodox conceive, it must be written off as "vain traditions of men."

Otherwise, we're just creating more traditions and we're making God say things that He didn't say. The Apostle Paul warns us not to think beyond what is written in 1 Corinthians 4:6, and I'll take that advice.

There are those dastardly traditions of men; Catholic and Orthodox men, that is.

 

[Tzaousios]

I'm going to say this first and foremost, I don't know what beliefs were held when the Scriptures were bound into one singular book...but I do know that my beliefs are coming from those Scriptures.

If this is the case, don't you think that you should read some history and historical theology before you dismiss history out of hand? There is not much humility in waving away 2,000 years worth of work so that one can proceed with the "me and my Bible" mentality.

It doesn't matter what those men held when they bound the Scriptures.

Wow.

Who are you to declare that God did not think his chosen vessels were valuable as persons and thinking creations?

Those who bound the Scriptures didn't write the Scriptures. The Scriptures were written way before 314AD...it was written by inspired men, through the Holy Spirit, chosen to write what God wanted to communicate to people.

Here is another false dichotomy, in which the men who canonized the Scriptures are written off as worthless lackeys compared to the Apostles.

If your perspective had been informed by history, you would know that the men who preserved Scripture, as well as the ones who canonized it, had learned at the feet of the Apostles and their pupils.

The Apostles and the disciples walked with God, they knew His teachings, they were given the Holy Spirit for it to bring into remembrance all things.

Okay, and what about those who learned from the Apostles and received what was handed down?

That is what we read when we read the Old and New Testament, it's not a made-up product from those who canonized scripture in 314AD. Those men's commonly held beliefs were not canonized, the Scriptures were.

Although this is difficult to parse, it appears here that you are denigrating the church fathers and the canonizers with the terms "made-up product" and "commonly held beliefs." Please clarify what you mean by these questionable terms.

But God saw fit, to chose men that He wanted to canonized His Scripture and that Scripture is what teaches us our faith, it is not the men who canonized it. Scripture teaches us about Him, about His will for us, about His Son's death and everything He saw fit that we needed to know.

I don't understand why you are still on the fence about the men who canonized Scripture. It seems that you do not want to budge one iota in order to acknowledge that these men were God's chosen vessels to preserve and canonize Scripture.

If you had to choose between the assertion that the whole, complete Bible fell from the sky in canonized form, and recognizing that men after the original Apostles who were part of the united Catholic and Orthodox Church were chosen for the task, you would choose the former over the latter.

 

[LinuxUser]

I don't understand the conversation, we're speaking about us Christians talking to dead Christians

So you don't believe when Christians go to the Lord that they are alive in Christ. Even Paul believed the Christians who went home were not dead

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

I'm going to say this first and foremost, I don't know what beliefs were held when the Scriptures were bound into one singular book...but I do know that my beliefs are coming from those Scriptures. It doesn't matter what those men held when they bound the Scriptures. Those who bound the Scriptures didn't write the Scriptures. The Scriptures were written way before 314AD...it was written by inspired men, through the Holy Spirit, chosen to write what God wanted to communicate to people. Those writers had first hand account, they were eye witnesses to things that were going on in both the Old an New Testament. The Apostles and the disciples walked with God, they knew His teachings, they were given the Holy Spirit for it to bring into remembrance all things. That is what we read when we read the Old and New Testament, it's not a made-up product from those who canonized scripture in 314AD. Those men's commonly held beliefs were not canonized, the Scriptures were.

Do you realize that what you've just done here is express a tradition? Your tradition is that only the Apostles and disciples, only the men who wrote the Bible or were alive when Christ walked the earth, were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that the men who came after them in the Church, who were responsible for preserving the writings and forming what we now know of as the Bible, were not. Your tradition is that it doesn't matter what interpretation of the Bible the men who came after the Apostles held when they decided which books were Holy Scripture and which writings were not. This is a new tradition, an innovation.

Why is your tradition to be believed over one that is 1000+ years older?

Why would the men who decided what the Bible is comprised of get right which books are Holy Scripture when they apparently did not interpret those Scriptures correctly, according to you?

 

[Stryder06]

So, this is what it's like when we ask the Theotokos or other Saints to pray for us:

Most Holy Theotokos, please pray for my son.

What makes her "most holy"? What if I sent you a message saying "Most Holy Dorothea, please pray for me"? Wouldn't that strike you as odd?

Me to a friend - "Would you please pray for my son."

I don't see a difference. And they are also praying with us.

You didn't say "Most Holy friend"

It's not about some Saint taking the place of praying to God. We pray together to God, and I pray alone to God most of the time - like 98% of the time. Asking others to pray for my family is the other 2% of the time.

I hope this break down in explanation helps some.

It does. I guess I just can't get past the whole "saint's being in heaven" thing.

 

[Catherineanne]

I guess I just can't get past the whole "saint's being in heaven" thing.

In that case, I refer you to Revelation 7 and 8.

And he said to me, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Therefore are they before the throne of God,
and serve him day and night within his temple;
and he who sits upon the throne will shelter them with his presence.
They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more;
the sun shall not strike them, nor any scorching heat.
For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
and he will guide them to springs of living water;
and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

 

[Stryder06]

In that case, I refer you to Revelation 7 and 8.

The portion you provided is post 2nd coming. Is there something specific you are referring to besides that?

 

[Catherineanne]

The portion you provided is post 2nd coming. Is there something specific you are referring to besides that?

First of all, what verse says that? I think you will find that is interpretation, not Scripture.

Secondly, eternity is not in time, therefore cannot be 'post' anything. God is not subject to time; he does not change, and eternity does not change.

The saints are indeed before the throne of the Lamb, and their prayers join with ours.

Bless the Lord, you servants of the Lord,
sing praise to him and highly exalt him for ever.
Bless the Lord, spirits and souls of the righteous,
sing praise to him, and highly exalt him for ever.

Bless him, all who worship the Lord, the God of gods,
sing praise to him and give thanks to him,
for his mercy endures for ever.'

Daniel 3 v 63, 64, 68

One that was ancient of days took his seat;
his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;
his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire.
A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.

Daniel 7 v 9,10

Or do those not count either?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Or do those not count either?

Not a bit.





.

 

[Stryder06]

First of all, what verse says that? I think you will find that is interpretation, not Scripture.

Secondly, eternity is not in time, therefore cannot be 'post' anything. God is not subject to time; he does not change, and eternity does not change.

The saints are indeed before the throne of the Lamb, and their prayers join with ours.

The thing about Revelation is that it goes hand in hand with Daniel.

Chapter 12 v1 says: And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Now going back to Revelation we read, before the sealing of the 144,000

And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

We can see from this that those who are about to be sealed are on the earth. Jumping down to verse 13 and 14 we read

And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

So yes, what John saw was the sealing of the 144,000 and then that great multitude standing before the Lamb. These individuals will not be before the Lamb until He comes and this mortal puts on immortality. That occurs at the second coming, thus the reason why I said "post second coming".

Daniel 3 v 63, 64, 68

Or does that one not count either?

And I'm not sure what "Daniel" book you're reading, but the one I have doesn't have 68 verses in chapter 3. Chapter 3 ends at v 30.

 

[Catherineanne]

Not a bit.

Good to know.

 

[Catherineanne]

And I'm not sure what "Daniel" book you're reading, but the one I have doesn't have 68 verses in chapter 3. Chapter 3 ends at v 30.

Your Bible is the randomly edited for no apparent reason version. Mine is the original, or rather, an RSV variant of it.

Good luck with that.

And as I said above, God is not under time. He does not have to wait for the second coming before he gets to stand in eternity with the saints. That is just silly. Time is part of creation, and God does not answer to any part of his creation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Good to know.

Sure.




.

 

[Stryder06]

Your Bible is the randomly edited for no apparent reason version.

Good luck with that.

Right. I forgot. As opposed to the "it's right because we say it is even though many of these texts will contradict each other, but don't worry, tradition says otherwise so you're ok" version?

 

[Catherineanne]

Right. I forgot. As opposed to the "it's right because we say it is even though many of these texts will contradict each other, but don't worry, tradition says otherwise so you're ok" version?

No, I don't have that one. It must be a new translation.

So, on whose authority was your version edited, given the warning about taking away from Scripture?

 

[Chrysostoma]

I'm going to say this first and foremost, I don't know what beliefs were held when the Scriptures were bound into one singular book...but I do know that my beliefs are coming from those Scriptures. It doesn't matter what those men held when they bound the Scriptures. Those who bound the Scriptures didn't write the Scriptures. The Scriptures were written way before 314AD...it was written by inspired men, through the Holy Spirit, chosen to write what God wanted to communicate to people. Those writers had first hand account, they were eye witnesses to things that were going on in both the Old an New Testament. The Apostles and the disciples walked with God, they knew His teachings, they were given the Holy Spirit for it to bring into remembrance all things. That is what we read when we read the Old and New Testament, it's not a made-up product from those who canonized scripture in 314AD. Those men's commonly held beliefs were not canonized, the Scriptures were.

Ok, but do you understand that the books that we Christians call the New Testament canon were not bundled together in the first century and put into storage until Athanasius stumbled upon them and sent out a letter to all the churches to inform them of a new set of inspired Scripture to be added to the already-accepted canon of Old Testament scriptures? There were quite a few other versions of the Gospel which were circulating among the local churches of the near east; the early fathers of the Church had a lot of material to sift through. I know that until recently I took for granted that I can read the inspired words of the New Testament without considering the men who labored together to ensure that what I receive as Scripture really is Scripture. Let me close with a link to an excellent essay on the subject of the history of the assembly of the New Testament canon. It's written by a Jew who, in his own words was "surprised by Christ.". http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html

Sent from my iPhone using CF