What scriptures support praying to the saints?

[DrBubbaLove]

Just to be clear, what "error" exactly? Asking the deceased in Christ to pray for us or what?

Yes that it is the topic of this thread. If it is not a valid teaching, then one can only say it is being taught in "error". Not possible to deny it happened though many choose to ignore it all together.

 

[Standing Up]

No, as I said Mary is still alive when these liturgies are first formed. She is not a Saint at that point.

But you already admitted there was no tie to apostles. It's assumed the liturgy existed prior to c1000ad.

So the first historical reference is by inference that the earliest forms of the liturgy contained several prayers (including the Our Father) and requests for prayer for the whole world, and at some point in the first century, including in that prayer request for the whole world is an explicit request to the martyrs to pray for us; which later becomes Saints rather than excluding it to only asking those Saints who died in a particular manner.

The first documented (as in we have a copy of it) reference of the idea of host in Heaven interceding on our behalf is Hermas's "The Shepard". The concepts go hand in hand even though his help is from an angel.

Okay, but don't you find it at least instructive as a Christian first/foremost to hear the angel questioning the "belief"? IOW, there is this:

Heb. 1:1-2God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The angel seems to know something Hermas and others are missing. The angel in effect is wondering what's the problem? Why are you asking me, instead of God Himself?

 

[Fireinfolding]

But as I keep saying, these are not "my own". While no apparent to all here, these are traditions clearly passed down from the first century forward. Scripture itself in the NT allows for it, so I have every reason to believe the testimony of the Church now and through the witness of these Fathers that it is so.

That you reject it as traditions of men I get. I used to. What I never get is people saying it is error created by "Rome" when quite clearly if they want to believe it to be error it has to have started nearly 400 years earlier at the very beginning of the Churches, even while some of the Apostles still walked among them.

Also difficult for me to fathom how one determines now which traditions "of men" to follow and which to not, because the same men that gave us the ones we hold in common also gave us the rest. And in large part many are following this subset of traditions carved from the larger older list by men more recently.

They werent saying "our own" (in the sense) of making it up for themselves (on the spot to Jeremiah) but as what was passed down to them. It shows right (in the verse) they are stating AS WE HAVE done & OUR fathers, princes etc etc. Its an indicator (set forth as an example) as to how they answered the prophet of God (Jeremiah) by whom God did speak. These (there) are showing themselves as an example of turning their ears from the truth (in that sense). He told them to not do that. But they would answer our own mouth (and traditionally so). Right there is a perfect example of how error is also traditionally taught (and orally so). The prophets (even Jeremiah in this case) is as a confronter to their example (which can be that which we learn by).

1Cr 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

And a true prophet (which Jeremiah was) shows himself forth in this same wonderful example...

Jerm 28:6 Even the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen: the LORD do so: the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the LORD'S house, and all that is carried away captive, from Babylon into this place.

Jerm 28:7 Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people;

Jerm 28:8 The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.

Just like the prophets of old, they would be true to the words of the former prophets just as those who followed after the apostles should be true to the apostes. Error is standing corrected by the prophet according to the former prophets, notice the patern for us?

1Cr 10:6 Now these things were our examples

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Okay, but don't you find it at least instructive as a Christian first/foremost to hear the angel questioning the "belief"? IOW, there is this:

Heb. 1:1-2God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The angel seems to know something Hermas and others are missing. The angel in effect is wondering what's the problem? Why are you asking me, instead of God Himself?

Re-read it.
The question is valid, but in the preface before that question the angel is saying some people are indeed slothful in prayer - but not you Hermas, you have saught and received intercession from the Spirit (Lord) before. IOW Good on you Hermas, then so why are you still asking me? Why not ask the Lord? He is not saying it is wrong, just asking why and the angel keeps telling him no "I am not going to tell you." Almost like do not bother me.

Hermas answers him that if he did not have you (the angel) to ask and the Lord had revealed these things to me then I would ask the Lord about the meaning. Hermas persists, but since you (the angel) have given me these visions, then you should explain them to me. The angel finally relents and tells him the meaning.

The whole point of even referencing this story is it requires the acceptance that hosts in Heaven can not only hear us but can answer our requests, not a question of whether the writing addresses if it is right or wrong to do so. From the writing it is a given that it is being done because Hermas is doing it. And before relenting to his request the angel commends Hermas for being faithful in prayer to the Lord, so it indicates Hermas has been doing both.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But you already admitted there was no tie to apostles. It's assumed the liturgy existed prior to c1000ad.

HAd to break this up.

Hope you meant prior to 100AD. And it is more than just an assumption. There is a lot of evidence suggesting the form is set before the end of the 1st century. This because we see the same form of St James Liturgy doc we do have indicated in the form of early Eastern Churches liturgies and references to this coming from the Church in Jerusalem. These references predate the 4th century.

Look, even wiki says the oldest copy we have of St James Liturgy was made around the turn of the 1st millennium, yet most agree it is AT LEAST as old as some 700 years earlier. So think about that for a sec. You have a doc detailing exactly what is done and said in Mass being used that almost everyone agrees is a version of that Liturgy that is at least 700 years older than when that copy was made. That means at the turn of the last millennium you have people using a nearly, if not exact unchanged liturgy for at least 700 years.

Now realize that for the next 1000 years people are still using that exact same liturgy to conduct a Mass and in some places today. Also consider that the form of that liturgy - "form" meaning the major structure/elements, the order/arrangement and much of the language matches so closely with the Mass conducted every where today, that it would be recognized by EVERYBODY as closely related, if not coming from some common ancient earlier "form".
It is that uniformity of form, (the structure, order and language) which enables "most" theologians/historians to say the oldest copy can be said to have been in use at least as early as mid 4th century because of other references to it from that time. So we know it is as least that old.

While at the same time (and this briefly alluded to even in the wiki article) the similarities between this St James Liturgy and some ancient Eastern liturgies along with other dated references to those strongly supports that some earlier form of this liturgy was in the original source for all of these and it is tied to the 1st century Church in Jerusalem.

So yeah, you could say the copy we have is only about a thousand years old, but that is not the whole story.

And if one is going to make a stand on at most a 4th century usage of this liturgy (Roman invention), you have to wonder about a people that would preserve such a liturgy completely in tact for the next 1600 years or so. Do we really think just as Constantine makes Christianity a legal religion such a people would just suddenly create something so detailed out of the blue? And that magically somehow Churches everywhere automatically adopt very similar looking liturgies also out of the blue at the same time? And at the same time have their leaders claiming these are ancient liturgies and each group taking pride in their origin? ("Liturgy of Blessed Saint James")

For me to believe that is what happened as soon Christianity became vogue is hard to swallow. Which is why the honest historian and even wiki must admit or at least give a nod to their being a much earlier version of this liturgy being in place and used as common source for many of the ones well documented in the 4th century.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

They werent saying "our own" (in the sense) of making it up for themselves (on the spot to Jeremiah) but as what was passed down to them. It shows right (in the verse) they are stating AS WE HAVE done & OUR fathers, princes etc etc. Its an indicator (set forth as an example) as to how they answered the prophet of God (Jeremiah) by whom God did speak. These (there) are showing themselves as an example of turning their ears from the truth (in that sense). He told them to not do that. But they would answer our own mouth (and traditionally so). Right there is a perfect example of how error is also traditionally taught (and orally so). The prophets (even Jeremiah in this case) is as a confronter to their example (which can be that which we learn by).

1Cr 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

And a true prophet (which Jeremiah was) shows himself forth in this same wonderful example...

Jerm 28:6 Even the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen: the LORD do so: the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the LORD'S house, and all that is carried away captive, from Babylon into this place.

Jerm 28:7 Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people;

Jerm 28:8 The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.

Just like the prophets of old, they would be true to the words of the former prophets just as those who followed after the apostles should be true to the apostes. Error is standing corrected by the prophet according to the former prophets, notice the patern for us?

1Cr 10:6 Now these things were our examples

I realize that.
My reaction however was to the suggestion that there would be anything wrong with my following a tradition we claim was passed down from the Apostles and demonstrate a solid connection to what what was practiced in the early Church. In that sense it is not my or our or man's position but that of the Apostles, which means also that of Jesus.

I acknowledge many here do not agree we have such a connection, but I reject the notion all of this originates as something suddenly created out of the blue in the 4th century when it obviously wasn't.

It is barely possible for us with any absolute certainty to declare all the authors of the NT, or even that it all was written 1st century, yet most of us accept from tradition that it was and also accept the traditional (passed down) assigned source where there are doubts. Why? Because of the records and docs kept in the Church recording these things.

How is it then that we assume all these same docs require a level of scrutiny beyond that which we require in regard to traditions relating to the Bible? Afterall these are the same people telling us this or that letter is to be included in the canon, or that this person or that one wrote this. Am not saying these men are perfect, but you would think we would give them some credit.

Where we have multiple cross references pointing to common sources (much like "Quelle"/Q for example) why is it so difficult to accept that such a source existed and was in use in the first century even though we have no existing copies?
And if we are going to claim these things, these traditions some do not accept, claim it represent error being taught in the Church, then why does it matter when it started? Why would it matter if it did begin in the first century? Why not? The further back one goes the less documentation we have.

Many do make that claim, and who can refute it? It cannot be refuted because it places in doubt any and all subsequent doc that references the alleged error! The fact we have docs with copies of writings dated that far back at all is amazing to me. The fact those docs reference many of these things should be addressed.

Which is why I have said a 1st century corruption is a more honest opinion/position than trying to claim traditions one does agree with magically appear in the 4th century, with some Roman/pagan influx conspiracy for example.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Well, no use kicking dead horses, been there done that. And I cant see where the prophets or the apostles agree with any such thing. I would rather err on the side of the scripture of truth because its also by which the man of God be perfect.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well, no use kicking dead horses, been there done that. And I cant see where the prophets or the apostles agree with any such thing. I would rather err on the side of the scripture of truth because its also by which the man of God be perfect.

Well we agree to disagree then.

But just for the record, the Fathers saying the Apostles taught something would of necessity require that it also be in agreement with the "scripture of truth".

So it cannot be a matter of not believing or not following scripture. It would be a matter of not agreeing on what scripture says. And that is obviously where we disagree.

 

[Standing Up]

HAd to break this up.

Hope you meant prior to 100AD. And it is more than just an assumption. There is a lot of evidence suggesting the form is set before the end of the 1st century. This because we see the same form of St James Liturgy doc we do have indicated in the form of early Eastern Churches liturgies and references to this coming from the Church in Jerusalem. These references predate the 4th century.

350 vs 50 is plenty long to develop stuff.

Look, even wiki says the oldest copy we have of St James Liturgy was made around the turn of the 1st millennium, yet most agree it is AT LEAST as old as some 700 years earlier. So think about that for a sec. You have a doc detailing exactly what is done and said in Mass being used that almost everyone agrees is a version of that Liturgy that is at least 700 years older than when that copy was made. That means at the turn of the last millennium you have people using a nearly, if not exact unchanged liturgy for at least 700 years.

The other problem with RC using it is James argues for the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, rather than as cousins.

Now realize that for the next 1000 years people are still using that exact same liturgy to conduct a Mass and in some places today. Also consider that the form of that liturgy - "form" meaning the major structure/elements, the order/arrangement and much of the language matches so closely with the Mass conducted every where today, that it would be recognized by EVERYBODY as closely related, if not coming from some common ancient earlier "form".
It is that uniformity of form, (the structure, order and language) which enables "most" theologians/historians to say the oldest copy can be said to have been in use at least as early as mid 4th century because of other references to it from that time. So we know it is as least that old.

While at the same time (and this briefly alluded to even in the wiki article) the similarities between this St James Liturgy and some ancient Eastern liturgies along with other dated references to those strongly supports that some earlier form of this liturgy was in the original source for all of these and it is tied to the 1st century Church in Jerusalem.

So yeah, you could say the copy we have is only about a thousand years old, but that is not the whole story.

And if one is going to make a stand on at most a 4th century usage of this liturgy (Roman invention), you have to wonder about a people that would preserve such a liturgy completely in tact for the next 1600 years or so. Do we really think just as Constantine makes Christianity a legal religion such a people would just suddenly create something so detailed out of the blue? And that magically somehow Churches everywhere automatically adopt very similar looking liturgies also out of the blue at the same time? And at the same time have their leaders claiming these are ancient liturgies and each group taking pride in their origin? ("Liturgy of Blessed Saint James")

For me to believe that is what happened as soon Christianity became vogue is hard to swallow. Which is why the honest historian and even wiki must admit or at least give a nod to their being a much earlier version of this liturgy being in place and used as common source for many of the ones well documented in the 4th century.

Our senses of history differ. It's very clear to me there were strands of tradition. Some were assimilated, some were not. As mentioned, RC likes the liturgy part, but not the sons of Joseph part.

Not much left to say here. Your assertion that something from 350ad is close enough to apostles may work for you, but not me.

Any other thoughts on who was first invoked in history? Mary, James, Peter, an angel?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

350 vs 50 is plenty long to develop stuff.



The other problem with RC using it is James argues for the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, rather than as cousins.



Our senses of history differ. It's very clear to me there were strands of tradition. Some were assimilated, some were not. As mentioned, RC likes the liturgy part, but not the sons of Joseph part.

Not much left to say here. Your assertion that something from 350ad is close enough to apostles may work for you, but not me.

Any other thoughts on who was first invoked in history? Mary, James, Peter, an angel?

Realize I wrote a lot, but you missed the whole point and the wiki article speaking of "earlier forms". This copy EVERYONE apparently agrees gets us to the 4th century. It is the apparent existence of an earlier version of the same liturgy, the similarity of the form of that with ancient Eastern liturgies crossed with other references to those earlier liturgies which gets us to the 1st century. Add to this the obvious pride taken in the various Churches in claiming to tie their liturgies to the most ancient know to them.

Just ignoring all this valid circumstantial evidence and focus on the 4th century "at least" that old date. We still marvel that one would think a group of people that would preserve something, proudly keeping it so meticulously original for nearly 1700 years now (back to 4th) along with the enormous difficulty involved in accomplishing that feet during that whole period, that one would then believe this same group of people would do nothing of the sort prior to the 4th century. Does not compute to me.

In the 4th century the spread of the Church is so large it can take years for meaningful two way communication between the extremes. Travel for Christian "messengers" required to do that is brutal and sometimes messengers lost thier heads literally in some of the more contentios exchanges (they could not toss cell phones back then). You could also imagiine multiple round trips being required for some things. Yet even then the uniformity between the various liturgies in use in the 4th century requires us to believe they had been maintaining the same effort at least locally that they then continued exhibiting going forward.

There is no other way to explain it. Which is why they can look at various litugies in the 4th century, compare the St James in use in Jerusalem, see the similarities with some in use in the East, look at other local cross references to those liturgies and make with great confidence statments like there has to have been a more ancient common form from which all these particular liturgies orginated. Apparently that was done in this case and they concluded that source was a more ancient version of the St James Liturgy in use in the Church at Jerasulem dating from the 1st century. We do not have it, but they are very certain it existed. It is similar to the process they used to conclude without having seen in scrap of paper proving a copy existed that there had to have been a book of Jesus quotes that the writers of the Gospels used as a common reference.

 

[mmksparbud]

Am I understanding correctly that praying to the saints is something that came about after the crucifixtion?? So is everybody agreeing that nobody prayed to the saints before Christs' death and resurrection??

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Am not sure. But the OT certainly shows others (angels) in Heaven interceding on our behalf. So at the very least one can say the idea of intercession by a host in Heaven predates Christianity. I think the very Jewish concept of people being held in limbo after death and there general "we don't know" attitude toward the afterlife leaves the idea open but not as a practice. I am fairly certain they are open to the possiblity of God allowing the dead to talk/visit but again I think as a practice or something to be saught I think it is not a developed idea for them.
The Christians (Jews) having witnessed the "dead walking" amoung them (Matt 27)after the crucifiction however would have to begin to question any prior notion they had of the afterlife and what the saints who have passed are "doing". Combine those thoughts with the witness of the Apostles having seen Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah, the time they spent with our Lord after His death and resurrection would have to be considered in asking about this practice.

I think the prudent person having witnessed all these things would have been curious about the afterlife and our ability to communicate. Obvious to them then the dead are still "around" and "aware". Even though we clearly could not have all the dialogue which occurs between them and our risen Lord, the idea that no one thought to ask or that even later the general topic does not come up amongst them is not credible to me. Saint Thomas does not strike me as someone who would have just let these things go unanswered.

Now combine those thoughts with the obvious scriptural professions of there being a unity in the Church, as One Body headed by Jesus now in Heaven, the idea of Jesus saying to the theif for example in regards to what happens to these holy martyrs after they die, the commands to pray for one another, combined with the very early expression in the Church of it being established as a Kingdom whose members are united both here and in the next life and I do not think it is rocket science to see where this quickly went.

Whether one believes ALL of these things are fully represented in scripture or not, I think enough of those are detailed there and some of these men shown to be clever enough that asking such question of our Lord while He was still with them is a no brainer. So while we do not have it recorded there for us, I cannot believe it was not a topic which then becomes a concept/teaching that gets passed down.

Now we can call all that speculative, but given what they witnessed themselves in 3 short years I think even the dimmest among them would have questions in this regard and so it had to come up.

I mean come on, "I will be with you always." What about us when we die then, will be "around" to help always too? In what way?...etc. I mean gee they were curious enough (and proud) to ask Him about seating arrangements in the next life.

 

[Sojourner1]

Mod Hat On​

​

​

If your post is missing it has been removed in a major thread cleanup. The topic of this thread is:

What scriptures support praying to the saints?
Cite chapter and verse, as well as translation, and post the text here for exegesis.

Please stay on topic. The topic of this thread is not which church is the true church and it is not a debate about Catholicism vs. Protestantism. There was a lot of flaming and goading going on in this thread, as well as posts that accused other Christians of not being Christians. Please remember this rule:

Flaming
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
​

Mod Hat Off​

​

​

 

[Standing Up]

Whats kool there too is how he names what not to make from where either, because in revelation it speaks of a beast that comes up out of the earth which speaks as a dragon, causing them to the worship the first beast that come out of the sea by saying make an image?

In the earth beneathe and in the water under the earth there too. Sorta ironic "the causing" them "to worship" is connected to "by saying" make an image too.

Though I was always curious as to why Dianna is mentioned like this, "whose image fell down from heaven"?

Anyone know where that come from, or what they meant by that?

Who's Dianna?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Who's Dianna?

I missed this post SU, sorry the goddess of Ephesus, apparently her magnificant and reputation for being worshipped was known throughout Asia

The dudes that made all the idols and stuff got rich off folks loving images, so I would think Paul saying there are no gods made "by hands" (graven art by mans device) which was a real threat to their occupation

Acts 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.

Not the same picture but the wording simililiarly threaded (throughtout)


Rev 18:15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

The same sorta concept, of merchants, their crafts who were made rich (or have their wealth) through the delusions of others who might "concrete" a myth. Perhaps more of a displacement devotions through objects of their devotions (in concrete) or whatever is on hand, varrys.

But I wanted to look into Diana more, just why it was worded that way, that her image fallen down from heaven, or Jupiter.

Diana = "complete light: flow restrained"

Acts 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth

Quite an epidemic, and then ofcourse they start propping her fallen self up (not literally so) but with some shouting

Acts 19:28 And when they heard [these sayings], they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians.

I thought, maybe a good thread might be for virgin godess types (or fertilty womb) worship stuff. Well, then I thought maybe not. But there seems to be a certain alure to the personification of many goddess of types in other parts of the world.

Paul just seems to depersonalize them in scripture... sent his Son "made of a woman made under the law" (type thing). You dont hear him getting all personal on it. Well, to show in "the one" (impersonally) something to "the many" (personally). Sorta like Sarah and Agar. He said... these ARE two covenants, not these are two people Not saying they werent, but when folks (and I dont know how to put this without being misunderstood) personalize "into" an allegory (which is at first) regarded after the flesh they almost get offended at disregarding the flesh (wherein) is its power. On the one hand it deflates the sense of personal devotion to a single person (if they only regard the person after the flesh). But on the otherhand its a powerful tool to the many (who are not so taken up in the former regard). One (to me) acts as a veil (as the flesh can do) and to the other (not after the same). Its as if a veil is removed. Sword (to thy soul/singular) = hearts (of many/ plural) revealed. That type thing. Gees, If I put that right? Im not really good at articulating myself.

Just saying, and sorry if I said too much (and got a tad off topic)

But back on topic, maybe they prayed to Diana too, I dont know (And I dont care) I just had to say something about praying

God bless you brother

 

[iLogos]

I have searched the bible over and over and have not found one single instance where Jesus Christ prayed to anyone other than to His Father. When asked to teach us to pray He said to pray "Our Father, which art in heaven..." Jesus did not pray to Moses or to Elijah or to Enoch--only to His Father and that is what He told us to do. We are to pray together, for each other--the living for the living. But--you can do whatever you want. I simply choose to do as Christ did. He asked His deciples to pray for Him, never did He ask anyone else in heaven to intercede for Him--He is the intercessor.

I've noticed a large absence of actual scripture reference to support praying to angels and saints and a ample amount of scripture against it. I understand that this practice d view is based entirely on tradition of men. My question is this, what is the purpose of praying to angels and saints? Do you think if God does not listen to us or Jesus on our behalf, He would then listen to angels and saints on our behalf?

 

[Incariol]

I've noticed a large absence of actual scripture reference to support praying to angels and saints and a ample amount of scripture against it.

*blinks* I've never see anything like that.

I understand that this practice d view is based entirely on tradition of men.

Kay.

My question is this, what is the purpose of praying to angels and saints?

This: http://www.christianforums.com/f10/

Do you think if God does not listen to us or Jesus on our behalf, He would then listen to angels and saints on our behalf?

No. What a bizarre idea that is.

 

[iLogos]

So why not go directly thru Jesus?

 

[Incariol]

So why not go directly thru Jesus?

Umm, we do. Why would you ever assume we don't?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Do non-Catholics ask the whole world to pray for them or just their closest friends or prayer partners?
Would it be wrong if all Christians in the world prayed for them?
Why not just ask Jesus to pray for them?
Why ask anybody?