What scriptures support praying to the saints?

[DrBubbaLove]

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

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

No, and I never claimed to be a seminarian, someone else here said they were or had contemplated it or something like that.

I like to read. And if I were attempting to discern truth in this matter, I would not stop with a quote of quote of Saint Melito to form an opinion regarding the early Church and attempt to make a rebuttal on that ground. If it were that simple then we would not have a prominent Protestant like John Kelly declaring the early Church did indeed have a bigger Bible than Protestants do today?

Ever hear of the Apostolic Fathers Saint Clement & Saint Polycarp, or of the Didache or the Shepard of Hermas or Letter to Barnabus, or of Saint Irenaeus or Saint Hippolytus, or Saint Cyprian, Council of Rome, Council of Hippo o Council of Carthage?

Ever hear of the Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonical and protocanonical OT books and predates Christ as a list of OT books; is quoted from in the NT (validates the list);the deuteroconical are quoted from the Saints listed above beginning in the first century with men who knew the Apostles (you know the ones who knew and quoted from the Septuagint); and the councils of the Church which mimic the same OT Septuagint canon?

Did we consider where Saint Melito was from (Asian Church?
Did we consider disputes within the Church on whether the Church itself is independent of the Jewish synagogue and thereby released from what ever changes they made with "their" OT?

Did we consider how that was resolved and whether or not parts of the Church, oh say Asian (where Saint Melito is speaking from) may have wanted to hold to the tie with the synagogue long after the rest moved on having settled on what they had ALREADY been using instead of following the Jews?

Did we consider we do not have all of Saint Melito's writing, leaving open at least the possibility what we have could be interpreted another way (maybe even an arguement AGAINST following the Jews)?

Did we even know the OT Canon from the Septuagint predates Christ and is the Canon used as a base for the Vulgate?

So, no. I am not sure how we can take an out of context quote from a single Saint and claim to know something from that without considering the rest of the picture.
I can see how reading a modern Protestant "doctor" of theology quoting this Saint might lead one to a different conclusion. I like to read. If you have a source making this argument then please give it up rather than just taunting with who can out quote a Saint or Church Father.

How about this. Quote some dude smarter (credentials not web blogs) than any of us disputing John Kelly's comment regarding the Canon of the Old Testament in the early Church. (Early Christian Doctrines, J Kelly 55-66)
Wow we went way off topic- sorry

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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?

I was taking from your comment about the Vulgate, which I took to mean you thought the "early" Church never considered it (the Vulgate) scripture. Which obviously makes no sense as the Vulgate translation of the Septuagint is not something the "early" Church would have.

Perhaps you meant the deuterocanonical books (which the Protestants reject) are not considered by the "early" Church as scripture, only "historic". The problem with that position is that you have no proof of that at all.

The Septuagint list of books is the basis of the Latin translation, Vulgate OT canon and still in use today in various editions. The Septuagint predates Christianity, meaning that list of OT books predates Christ. And we know this because the writers of the NT use it as a source something like 10 times more than the revised OT Talmud the Jews made in the late 1st century.

Several 1st century Fathers (they knew the Apostles) quote from some of the deuterocanonical books, as do The Shepard of Hermas, the Didache and other writings from the 1st century forward. And they quote from those books in the same manner they do as the other books (protocanonical). So to say they viewed them differently cannot be proven by their writings.

 

[jackmt]

I misspoke. The Vulgate was not translated. The Vulgate did not come into being until the end of the 4th century.

BTW, it occurred to me that you misunderstood my reason for saying that I had studied for the priesthood. It was not to give additional weight to anything I had to say; that would commit the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum. 2+2=4 no matter who believes it or why. And anyone who disagrees merely changes the subject. (W.V.O. Quine, paraphrased)

I wanted only to declare how seriously I take such matters. I might have said as well that I was an altar boy from the earliest I was allowed. I have been a serious seeker of truth since I was 8. None of that lends any authority to what I say. I guess I just don't want to be dismissed as a typical ex-catholic. It was very difficult for me to leave the church.

 

[whitetiger1]

You sound and act like a typical ex Catholic with your historical misrepresentation that you have not backed up.

 

[jackmt]

You sound and act like a typical ex Catholic with your historical misrepresentation that you have not backed up.

How old are you, 17? How about answering my questions?

 

[Standing Up]

No, -snip-

How about this. Quote some dude smarter (credentials not web blogs) than any of us disputing John Kelly's comment regarding the Canon of the Old Testament in the early Church. (Early Christian Doctrines, J Kelly 55-66)
Wow we went way off topic- sorry

Melito wrote about 175ad. Claims to be an eyewitness to the books used.

NT scripture doesn't quote from the deutoros.

Josephus c100 provides the same info as Melito.

You know the arguments.

The real issue here isn't what we know was OT scripture, the real issue is trying anyway to use one of the deteros because it "supports" praying to the dead.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I misspoke. The Vulgate was not translated. The Vulgate did not come into being until the end of the 4th century.

BTW, it occurred to me that you misunderstood my reason for saying that I had studied for the priesthood. It was not to give additional weight to anything I had to say; that would commit the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum. 2+2=4 no matter who believes it or why. And anyone who disagrees merely changes the subject. (W.V.O. Quine, paraphrased)

I wanted only to declare how seriously I take such matters. I might have said as well that I was an altar boy from the earliest I was allowed. I have been a serious seeker of truth since I was 8. None of that lends any authority to what I say. I guess I just don't want to be dismissed as a typical ex-catholic. It was very difficult for me to leave the church.

People make claims all the time. Difficult to know what is behind it when we know nothing of each other save what is written here. NP.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Melito wrote about 175ad. Claims to be an eyewitness to the books used.

NT scripture doesn't quote from the deutoros.

Josephus c100 provides the same info as Melito.

You know the arguments.

The real issue here isn't what we know was OT scripture, the real issue is trying anyway to use one of the deteros because it "supports" praying to the dead.

Again, IMO finding someone somewhere online quoting a single Saint from the second century and then attempting to use that to make a claim about what the early Church used is simply picking a quote to achieve whatever result one desires. Without considering the rest of the story that is not accurately presenting either what occurred or the rest of the information available to us about the early Church.

Yes taken alone, one could make a case Saint Melito is saying the shorter OT Canon was in use.
However, for all we know (not saying he was) and because we do not have all of that work from him, he could have been saying these are the books the Judiazers like. We also know the Church in Asian held to the tradition of following what was going on in the Synagogue at the time, with the OT the Jews of their day wanting to step away from the Septuagint. The Asian Church dropped that to follow what the rest of the Church had been doing for some time already. So the fact this Saint records what he sees at the time is hardly an endorsement of one canon over another. Especially when the choice is regarding something done long after Jesus and most of the Apostles had left the scene.

NT scripture may not quote the deuterocanonical books, but that is not the whole story either. Scripture quotes from the Septuagint something like 100x more than any other other Jewish translation, indicating the writers were intimately familiar with that translation. Which makes sense as my understanding that was the predominant translation used by Jews until late 1st century. The same Septuagint includes those deuterocanonical books. So it can hardly be said the NT writers would not be familiar with the entire translation including those books. That was the Apostles OT.

BTW, never mind the deuterocanonical, my understanding is not every protocanonical book in the Septuagint gets quotes either. Do not think I have ever heard Protestants argue for removing ALL books that are not directly quoted.

And again one needs to ask why a Protestant Doctor of Theology and expert on the Early Church would succeed the point that the Church was without question using the longer OT canon of the Septuagint translation. He would without doubt have access to Saint Melito's fragmented work. He would also know Josephus quoted frequently from the Septuagint even if he favored as a historian the shorter Hebrew Bible of his times (which Protestants adopt). Which means John Kelly would favor the explanation given here which addresses all these factors as it does explain how the early Church came to use the Septuagint (longer OT canon) version of the OT Bible.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament

 

[katherine2001]

How old are you, 17? How about answering my questions?

Why would it matter if he was 17? I knew a 17 year old who had read the entire Ante-Nicene Fathers series by Philip Schaff and understood them too. She knew what she was talking about.

 

[katherine2001]

DrBubbaLove, the sad thing is that the EO and the RC are accused of adding to the OT when it is the other way around. The Protestants are guilty of subtracting books from the OT, and the Bible warned against subtracting from the Scriptures as well as adding to the Scriptures. Personally, if Christ and the Apostles used the Septuagint, that is good enough for me. I am so glad that I have my Orthodox Study Bible that has the Septuagint and that all the books are in the correct order and not at the end of the Scriptures as they are in most Bibles that have the deuterocanonical books.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Thanks, agree.
When I sat on the other side of this fence I imagined an under ground Church that remained hidden for 1500 years or so and then magically pops up with the right Bible and the right traditions - ooops except we didn't call-em traditions.

 

[katherine2001]

Thanks, agree.
When I sat on the other side of this fence I imagined an under ground Church that remained hidden for 1500 years or so and then magically pops up with the right Bible and the right traditions - ooops except we didn't call-em traditions.

I did too. Studying Church History is a real eye opener.

 

[Standing Up]

I did too. Studying Church History is a real eye opener.

It sure is.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Unclear if the agreement about studying history here means actually reading original docs and concise full analysis of history or what someone else claims a quote of a quote of a single Saint taken totally outside of any historic context and disregarding any other writings to the contrary means. Am beginning to think the latter.

 

[Standing Up]

Unclear if the agreement about studying history here means actually reading original docs and concise full analysis of history or what someone else claims a quote of a quote of a single Saint taken totally outside of any historic context and disregarding any other writings to the contrary means. Am beginning to think the latter.

Tradition is full of confusion and opinion. Just between EO and RC alone there are numerous doctrinal contradictions over the centuries.

To the OP, the idea of praying to the saints came out from one reference in the deteros apparently. But when the apostles had two perfect examples in James son of Zebedee and Stephen, we don't read them suggesting it. Jesus said, agreement on earth.

But, I'd still like to know which saint was first prayed to? Did they invoke Mary or Peter or Paul or Stephen or who? Was it in 150, 250, 350, 450, or when? Who first started praying to Mary and when?

 

[Fireinfolding]

It sure is.

Or reading of those who preceeded it, arent they actually written for our examples?

 

[Thekla]

Tradition is full of confusion and opinion. Just between EO and RC alone there are numerous doctrinal contradictions over the centuries.

To the OP, the idea of praying to the saints came out from one reference in the deteros apparently. But when the apostles had two perfect examples in James son of Zebedee and Stephen, we don't read them suggesting it. Jesus said, agreement on earth.

But, I'd still like to know which saint was first prayed to? Did they invoke Mary or Peter or Paul or Stephen or who? Was it in 150, 250, 350, 450, or when? Who first started praying to Mary and when?

The "first" known to ask one who had left this earth for help was Joseph, who asked his mother Rachel for her prayers as he was taken into Egypt as a slave. Her prayer to God, and His answer, is recorded by Jeremiah.

This practice was already ancient by the time of Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

The "first" known to ask one who had left this earth for help was Joseph, who asked his mother Rachel for her prayers as he was taken into Egypt as a slave. Her prayer to God, and His answer, is recorded by Jeremiah.

This practice was already ancient by the time of Christ.

It's very obscure, but I've heard that before (probably from you )

No, I'm wondering about a NT Christian example. When and who was first invoked? ANy idea?

 

[Standing Up]

Or reading of those who preceeded it, arent they actually written for our examples?

Absolutely.

 

[Thekla]

It's very obscure, but I've heard that before (probably from you )

No, I'm wondering about a NT Christian example. When and who was first invoked? ANy idea?

It's not "obscure"

Look up (google search) Rachel's Tomb - read the pages. Not obscure; on the contrary, longstanding (and ancient), widespread, well known practice.

For those converting from Judaism, where in the NT is the teaching that:
a. this (then contemporary) practice is wrong
b. that it is to be stopped
c. that the same practice (which included patriarchs as well as matriarchs iirc) would not apply to those reposed in Christ