What scriptures support praying to the saints?

jackmt · Feb 7, 2012

katherine2001 said:
Is there a minister in your church? Does everyone in your church run the services and preach the sermon?

"Pastor/teacher" is an "office" listed in Ephesians 4:11-14. How it is practiced in "churches" is another issue. (I hate using quotation marks, but I am using them here to show disagreement with how the terms are commonly understood.)

Pastors of non-liturgical churches do not presume to absolve sins as a vicar of Christ or perform ritualistic services. Communion and baptisms are perhaps exceptions to this, but they are Scriptural as well.

Thekla · Feb 7, 2012

jackmt said:
No response about the priesthood of all believers and no special subclass of priests?

The term used for the "priesthood of all believers" is iereus (ιερευς, iereuw means 'to sacrifice'); the term commonly used for priest is presbyteros. Different originating terminology. There is also in the NT the "proistamenos".

These terms were also used by pagans, as was the term episkopos (translated bishop). The use of pagan terminology is not restricted to pontifex maximus.

DrBubbaLove · Feb 7, 2012

Standing Up said:
But we still have nothing that agrees with it, but vague pseudograph. And Hermas' angel is questioning what the problem is when it was done! As a Christian, didn't you get the memo-go directly to God.

But what does the angel at the same time he is asking why not go to Lord?
He tells Hermas that he knows Hermas is NOT slothful in prayer - IOW the angel already knows Hermas prays to the Lord -so the angel is really asking why are you bothering me this time, why not go to the Lord. And Hermas says I would if I did not have you to ask. And then in the next section the angel relents and tells Hermas the meaning of the vision.

You guys are focusing on what you want to see in the story and not the whole picture. Why? Why would you need to do that and ignore the rest of the story? So you can deny the early Church did this?

Deny all you want. You cannot have uniformity though out the kingdom in liturgies (and most here probably do not appreciate what that means) without a lot of effort toward doing that. Those liturgies include a prayer request to martyrs by the end of the 1st century.

DrBubbaLove · Feb 7, 2012

jackmt said:
The RCC didn't exist till after sometime in the 4th century. Anything claiming to be of the RCC before then is revisionist history. Praying to the dead is antibiblical, heretical, and pagan in origin. Only after Luther did the RCC add the Apocrypha, specifically Maccabees, to canon of Scripture to justify praying for the dead and purgatory. Peter was not the first pope. Pontifex Maximus was the title of the chief priest in ancient Rome. Peter wrote of the priesthood of all believers.(I Peter2:9) There was no special class of priests in the church established by Christ.

And please don't refer to me as a seminarian.

LOL now we know you did not make it to first year seminary history. Those same books are found in the agreed upon OPEN canon for nearly 1500 years, until the Church is forced to make a stand against Luther and proclaim the canon CLOSED.

When do you think the Vulgate translation was first published?
Hint- it was long before Luther. (not that the Vulgate was the first time Macabees was included in the canon)
Talk about revisionist history!!!!!!

jackmt · Feb 7, 2012

Thekla said:
The term used for the "priesthood of all believers" is iereus (ιερευς, iereuw means 'to sacrifice'); the term commonly used for priest is presbyteros. Different originating terminology. There is also in the NT the "proistamenos".

These terms were also used by pagans, as was the term episkopos (translated bishop). The use of pagan terminology is not restricted to pontifex maximus.

Of course the writers of Scripture used the same language as the people they were writing to. I am referring primarily to the office and not the terms used. The term for "priesthood" is pointing us back to the God's desiredpriesthood for every man of Israel in Exodus 19:6, as stated in a previous post.

Presbyteros is from the root presbus meaning "old man." Presbyopia is a vision problem named for "elderly eyes" The presbytery was church government by elders. Presbyter evolved later into prester, and from there into the English word "priest" which was then applied to a non-biblical office. Though the words are related etymologically, the offices they refer to are very different.

Episkopos is epi- from a root where we get hundreds of words, is frequently understood as "upon" or "over," and skopos is simply scope - to see, whence words such as "overseer" and "supervisor."
Proistemi is "to preside." No mysteries of the church here.

Neither pontifex maximus nor the office it purports to name appear in Scripture. Nor does Scripture anywhere suggest such an office.

Thekla · Feb 7, 2012

jackmt said:
Of course the writers of Scripture used the same language as the people they were writing to. I am referring primarily to the office and not the terms used. The term for "priesthood" is pointing us back to the God's desiredpriesthood for every man of Israel in Exodus 19:6, as stated in a previous post.

Presbyteros is from the root presbus meaning "old man." Presbyopia is a vision problem named for "elderly eyes" The presbytery was church government by elders. Presbyter evolved later into prester, and from there into the English word "priest" which was then applied to a non-biblical office. Though the words are related etymologically, the offices they refer to are very different.

Episkopos is epi- from a root where we get hundreds of words, is frequently understood as "upon" or "over," and skopos is simply scope - to see, whence words such as "overseer" and "supervisor." No mysteries of the church here.

The language makes clear, of course, that the priesthood of all believers is not at all the same as the presbyteros, and per Paul (epistles) it is demonstrated that presbyter, proistamenos, and episkopos were all positions of authority.

Per episkopos, by New Testament time (when it was borrowed for Christian use) it had been used for centuries to denote an office (see Homer, also historical writings re: Phillip of Macedon and Alexander the Great).

I'm not sure how one can assume that no office described in NT terminology is not related to "mysteries", nor am I clear on what you mean by the term "mysteries".

DrBubbaLove · Feb 7, 2012

jackmt said:
The Apocrypha were not deemed Scripture by the early church because they had not been accepted by the Hebrews as Scripture. The RCC was reluctant to include them but felt their hand was forced by Luther's theses.

How could someone claiming to be have been in seminary make such ridiculous claims about documented early Church history?

jackmt · Feb 7, 2012

Thekla said:
The language makes clear, of course, that the priesthood of all believers is not at all the same as the presbyteros, and per Paul (epistles) it is demonstrated that presbyter, proistamenos, and episkopos were all positions of authority.

Per episkopos, by New Testament time (when it was borrowed for Christian use) it had been used for centuries to denote an office (see Homer, also historical writings re: Phillip of Macedon and Alexander the Great).

I'm not sure how one can assume that no office described in NT terminology is not related to "mysteries", nor am I clear on what you mean by the term "mysteries".

Forgive me, that was an inappropriate dig.

I do not deny that there are legitimate offices in the church. The office of priesthood is not one of them. Neither is the office of pope, and certainly the concept of infallibity as pertaining to any man was foreign to the early church.

The presbytery was not a priesthood, but a "committee" of elders. Proistamenos seems it would be interpreted as "our president." I could not find the word in Scripture, but proistemi is "to preside."

We could go on and on about words and their etymologies and definitions and usages and meanings, etc., etc. But my main point can be summed up this way: you can't read the NT and in any way, shape, manner, or form, come up with the RCC. Look at the NT church, look at the RCC. The chasm cannot be spanned.

jackmt · Feb 7, 2012

DrBubbaLove said:
LOL now we know you did not make it to first year seminary history. Those same books are found in the agreed upon OPEN canon for nearly 1500 years, until the Church is forced to make a stand against Luther and proclaim the canon CLOSED.

When do you think the Vulgate translation was first published?
Hint- it was long before Luther. (not that the Vulgate was the first time Macabees was included in the canon)
Talk about revisionist history!!!!!!

I said I was called from among them early on and that is why I asked you not to call me a seminarian. Got it? Much of my studying was done prior to my entry. Once I came to understand that the RCC was not the church Christ founded, most of my studies re the RCC stopped.

The Vulgate was not translated until the end of the 4th century. The early church never considered it equal to Scripture and used it only for its historical value, as one of the books is alluded to (not quoted) in James.

Standing Up · Feb 7, 2012

DrBubbaLove said:
LOL now we know you did not make it to first year seminary history. Those same books are found in the agreed upon OPEN canon for nearly 1500 years, until the Church is forced to make a stand against Luther and proclaim the canon CLOSED.

Not so. Ever hear of Melito c175 who determined the OT? Same as protestants, less Esther.

From the Book of Extracts.3622 3622 In Eusebius, l. c.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.x.v.xi.html?highlight=melito,exodus,leviticus#highlightMelito to his brother Onesimus, greeting:
As you have often, prompted by your regard for the word of God, expressed a wish to have some extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our faith in general, and have desired, moreover, to obtain an accurate account of the Ancient Books, as regards their number and their arrangement, I have striven to the best of my ability to perform this task: well knowing your zeal for the faith, and your eagerness to become acquainted with the Word, and especially because I am assured that, through your yearning after God, you esteem these things beyond all things else, engaged as you are in a struggle for eternal salvation.
I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down below, and herewith send you the list. Their names are as follows:
The five books of MosesGenesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua,3623 3623 ᾽Ιησοῦς Ναυῆ. Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.

Let's hope you didn't go to seminary, eh?

Standing Up · Feb 7, 2012

jackmt said:
Forgive me, that was an inappropriate dig.

I do not deny that there are legitimate offices in the church. The office of priesthood is not one of them. Neither is the office of pope, and certainly the concept of infallibity as pertaining to any man was foreign to the early church.

The presbytery was not a priesthood, but a "committee" of elders. Proistamenos seems it would be interpreted as "our president." I could not find the word in Scripture, but proistemi is "to preside."

I see where you are leading. I will return to add to this, later.

I've mentioned before and I'll mention again. Even RC and EO and P agree with this. They all agree the NT word elder/overseer/bishop was changed, took on the meaning of sacerdotal priest.

Presbyter is, in the Bible, a synonym for bishop (episkopos), referring to a leader in local Church congregations. In modern usage, it is distinct from bishop and synonymous with priest. Its literal meaning in Greek (presbyteros) is "elder." ...
The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Palestine was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, who were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded. Initially, these presbyters were apparently identical with the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as such passages as Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5,7 indicate, and the terms were interchangeable.
Presbyter - OrthodoxWiki

The article just can't quite pull the trigger of full and honest admittance; that is, tradition changed what was apostolic scripture/practice in the beginning.

Thekla · Feb 8, 2012

Standing Up said:
I've mentioned before and I'll mention again. Even RC and EO and P agree with this. They all agree the NT word elder/overseer/bishop was changed, took on the meaning of sacerdotal priest.

Presbyter is, in the Bible, a synonym for bishop (episkopos), referring to a leader in local Church congregations. In modern usage, it is distinct from bishop and synonymous with priest. Its literal meaning in Greek (presbyteros) is "elder." ...
The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Palestine was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, who were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded. Initially, these presbyters were apparently identical with the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as such passages as Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5,7 indicate, and the terms were interchangeable.
Presbyter - OrthodoxWiki

The article just can't quite pull the trigger of full and honest admittance; that is, tradition changed what was apostolic scripture/practice in the beginning.

Not quite as you represent (else why different terminology ?); check where each term is used in noun vs. verb form.
Recall also that the roles overlap, but episkopos has a particular meaning (including "visitation", and the understanding of the office as a demonstration of and assurance of fealty) which is beyond the meaning of presbyter.

Thekla · Feb 8, 2012

jackmt said:
Forgive me, that was an inappropriate dig.

That's okay
I didn't notice a dig, anyway ...

I do not deny that there are legitimate offices in the church. The office of priesthood is not one of them. Neither is the office of pope, and certainly the concept of infallibity as pertaining to any man was foreign to the early church.

Iereus is not an office, presbyter is - its the translating that makes this confusing.

It is my understanding that the term pope (used also among the Copts) is an/was originally an affectionate term used for episkopos.

There is not such an 'infallibility' in the EO, so I can't comment further.

The presbytery was not a priesthood, but a "committee" of elders. Proistamenos seems it would be interpreted as "our president." I could not find the word in Scripture, but proistemi is "to preside."

The committee (like the pagan Areopagos) was made up of individula presbyteroi; presbyter also means "chief" and overlaps ( root ) with ambassador.

We could go on and on about words and their etymologies and definitions and usages and meanings, etc., etc. But my main point can be summed up this way: you can't read the NT and in any way, shape, manner, or form, come up with the RCC. Look at the NT church, look at the RCC. The chasm cannot be spanned.

I don't know enough about RC to comment, but the terminology should not be discounted nor undermined in order to mount an argument against something, but should be understood in its own right.

DrBubbaLove · Feb 8, 2012

jackmt said:
I said I was called from among them early on and that is why I asked you not to call me a seminarian. Got it? Much of my studying was done prior to my entry. Once I came to understand that the RCC was not the church Christ founded, most of my studies re the RCC stopped.

The Vulgate was not translated until the end of the 4th century. The early church never considered it equal to Scripture and used it only for its historical value, as one of the books is alluded to (not quoted) in James.

If you did not study early Church history and dropped out of seminary, then on basis to you claim to know how the early Church considered the Vulgate?

For that matter the early Church did not have a Vulgate - but we digress.

See you began all this by making a statement about your background, which taken on the surface could have suggested to other here that you had knowledge others might not possess and thereby give credence to your claims. As that has proven to be far from the case, then you should support your claims with sources rather than just making them. Just because you said so is not a proof.

Furthermore how theologians or members of the Church viewed a translation says little about the Canon itself or whether books were accepted or not as part of the Canon. As the same list included in the Vulgate occurs elsewhere in early Church debates on approved readings (much earlier than 4th century), you might want to start supporting your claim by giving source stating why/how those earlier references to the same Canon are false.

And as you claim the Church held onto a Bible that it did "accept as Scripture" for well nearly two millennium now (yeah it editions of it are still used today) then we would ask you support such a claim.

And please do not support it with modern Protestant theologians citing why Luther dropped the books. The claim was made that the "early Church" (and by early here you could have only meant Rome) did not accept the Vulgate. Please give "early Church" sources indicating that lack of support rather your or other modern opinion. Wiki won't get it for you either.

jackmt · Feb 8, 2012

The RCC did not exist till the 4th century. So when I speak of the early church, I am speaking of followers of Christ. I am sure you will disagree. Tell me then what is your reason for believing it (the RCC) to have been founded by Christ?

whitetiger1 · Feb 8, 2012

jackmt said:
The RCC did not exist till the 4th century. So when I speak of the early church, I am speaking of followers of Christ. I am sure you will disagree. Tell me then what is your reason for believing it (the RCC) to have been founded by Christ?

Prove it. Also it is against the rules to suggest Catholics are not followers of Christ as you have in your post

jackmt · Feb 8, 2012

whitetiger1 said:
Prove it. Also it is against the rules to suggest Catholics are not followers of Christ as you have in your post

I did not suggest that Catholics were by definition not followers of Christ; I know a few that are. I know many more that are not. And it's nearly impossible to prove a negative. And I doubt that any RC would accept it if I could. I asked why RCs believe that they are the church Christ founded. Why do you believe that?

Whisper of Hope · Feb 8, 2012

jackmt said:
The RCC did not exist till the 4th century. So when I speak of the early church, I am speaking of followers of Christ. I am sure you will disagree. Tell me then what is your reason for believing it (the RCC) to have been founded by Christ?

whitetiger1 said:
Prove it. Also it is against the rules to suggest Catholics are not followers of Christ as you have in your post

I don't see any suggestion in his post of him claiming that Catholics are not followers of Christ.

jackmt said:
I did not suggest that Catholics were by definition not followers of Christ; I know a few that are. I know many more that are not. And it's nearly impossible to prove a negative. And I doubt that any RC would accept it if I could. I asked why RCs believe that they are the church Christ founded. Why do you believe that?

Discussing why Roman Catholics believe that their church is the one Christ founded would be off-topic to the OP of the thread. If you want to discuss this topic with them, then you should start a new thread in the main General Theology forum.

whitetiger1 · Feb 8, 2012

it was implied

jackmt · Feb 8, 2012

I was not referring in anyway, positively or negatively, to RCs. I was speaking of those who were the church before the RCC was founded sometime around the 4th century.

What scriptures support praying to the saints?

Newbie

Thekla

Guest

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Newbie

Thekla

Guest

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Newbie

Newbie

On and on

On and on

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency