Skip to comments.
Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?
catholic-convert ^
| July 11, 2012
| Steve Ray
Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
Are saints who have physically died “dead saints” or are they alive with God?
A friend named Leonard Alt got tired of being hammered by anti-Catholic Fundamentalists on this issue so he decided to write this article. I thought you might enjoy it too, so here it goes…
Leonard writes: I wrote this note after several days of frustration with people, on Facebook, saying that saints cant do anything, because they are dead. They seem to be leaving out the fact that the souls live on. ENJOY!
Dead and gone? Where is his soul-his person?
An antagonist named Warren Ritz asked, Who are the “dead in Christ”, if not those who walked with our Lord, but who are now no longer among the living?” He is correct; the dead in Christ are those saints who have physically died. For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thess 4:16).
THE CONCEPT OF LIVING SAINTS CAN DO HARM TO THE JESUS ALONE DOCTRINE. From some peoples point of view, people who have died are classified as dead saints, who can do nothing. They are no longer a force to reckon with; they can no longer appear; they cannot talk nor do other things. These same people dont want the saints who have died doing anything because this would be another reason why the Protestant doctrine, JESUS ALONE fails. If the so-called dead saints do anything then it is not JESUS ALONE, but Jesus and the saints cooperating. And it would also mean that the so-called dead saints are in fact not dead, but alive with God.
Dead or in paradise?
HIS PHYSICAL BODY DIED BUT HIS SOUL LIVED ON. But, are the Saints who have gone before us alive with God or are they truly dead saints who can do nothing as some would suggest? Yes, their bodies are dead, but their souls live on. For example Jesus said to one of the criminals on the cross next to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43). Yes, that day, this man became the dead in Christ because his physical body died on his cross; however, Jesus said that today, this man would be with Him in paradise. He was no dead saint because his soul was alive in Christ in Paradise.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alive and concerned for their descendants
HE IS THE GOD OF THE LIVING. One person alluded to Mark 12:26-27 saying Jesus is the God of the living, not of the dead in an attempt to show that Jesus cannot be the god of those who have died; after all he says Jesus is the god of the living. However, he left out three people who were no longer alive in verse 26; Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God said that He was their God. And so does that mean that God is the God of the dead? No; He is not God of the dead but of the living.
- “God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and (the) God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled” (Mk 12: 26-27).
Abraham Isaac and Jacob are physically dead and yet their souls are alive because their God is not God of the dead but of the living and thus do not qualify as dead saints.
Moses was dead and buried. How could he talk to Jesus about future events on earth?
WHEN MOSES AND ELIJAH APPEARED WERE THEY DEAD OR ALIVE? There are those who insist that saints who have died are nothing more than dead saints who can do nothing. I usually ask them this question. When Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, were they dead or alive? And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah” (Lk 9:30). Not bad for a couple of so-called dead saints; not only did they appear, but they were talking as well. The question that I asked usually goes unanswered.
SORRY LEONARD
YOU HAVE A BAD ARGUMENT. Bill says, As Ecclesiastes says the dead have nothing more to do under the sun…sorry Leonard…you have a bad argument. He is using this as definitive Biblical proof that people on the other side cannot do anything once they have died. After all, Ecclesiastes does say, For them, love and hatred and rivalry have long since perished. They [the dead] will never again have part in anything that is done under the sun (Eccles 9:6).
When a person dies their body is in the grave; it is dead. They can no longer work under the sun, in this world. However, Ecclesiastes 9:6 is not a prohibition against the activity of the persons soul, which lives on. This of course begs the question; is there any indication of personal activity of a soul after death, in Scripture?
How did the bones of a dead guy bring another dead guy back to life?
Yes, there are a number of examples and here is one of them. Elisha after dying performed marvelous deeds. In life he [Elisha] performed wonders, and after death, marvelous deeds (Sir 48:14). Elisha died and was buried. At the time, bands of Moabites used to raid the land each year. Once some people were burying a man, when suddenly they spied such a raiding band. So they cast the dead man into the grave of Elisha, and everyone went off. But when the man came in contact with the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and rose to his feet (Kings 13:20-21).
Using, Ecclesiastes 9:6 as a prohibition against all soul activity after death is to use the verse out of context and at odds with other parts of the Bible. Ecclesiastes 9:6 is referring to the physical body that has died, not the soul that lives on. Elisha, after death performed marvelous deeds. It cant be much clearer than that!
The saints are not dead but alive in the presence of their Lord Jesus and part of the praying Mystical Body of Christ
JESUS NEVER CLAIMED THAT THOSE WHO HAVE DIED ARE DEAD SAINTS. Jesus understood well that when someone dies, they will live and in fact those who live and believe in him WILL NEVER DIE.
“Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this” (Jn 11:23-26)?
This union, with the saints on this side and the saints on the other side is referred to as the communion of saints in the Apostles Creed. Those who insist that dead saints cant do anything because their bodies have physically died seem not to understand that their souls live on and are very involved.
So, where does the Bible say we should pray to dead saints? I would ask, Where does the Bible say saints are dead?
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ministry/Outreach
KEYWORDS: catholic; deadsaints; doctrine; prayer; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
To: metmom
“Let me know if you get an answer cause as of yet, I NEVER have.”
I do not believe there is a list of traditions Paul referred to. I’ve asked, but it isn’t forthcoming.
Apparently, without a real list, anything - even hundreds or thousands of years later can become “an Apostle’s Tradition”... and has.
241
posted on
07/14/2013 5:40:04 PM PDT
by
aMorePerfectUnion
( “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” - Tacitus)
To: Catsrus
“He is not a God of the dead, but of the living!”
242
posted on
07/14/2013 5:40:33 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
To: Paisan; metmom
>>Upon this Rock I will build MY Church. This is the Catholic Church.<<
No its not.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was Christ the Son of the Living God Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was my Father which is in heaven. He then says to Peter and thou art Peter, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to my Father which is in heaven, says, upon this rock I will build my church.
In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the corner stone, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.
If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
243
posted on
07/14/2013 5:40:43 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
To: JCBreckenridge
From the link:
“More than once Origen refers to the Gospel of the Hebrews, sometimes without further comment (Comm. in John 2.12; Comm. in Matt. 16.12), sometimes with a qualifying phrase, such as ‘if any one receives it’ (Hom. in Jeremiah 15.4; Comm. in Matt. 15.14). See p. 137 of [Metzger].”
“If anyone cares to accept was is written in the Acts of Paul, where the Lord says: ‘I am on the point of being crucified afresh’ ... (Comm. in John 20.12)”
His qualifying phrase certainly indicates a lack of agreement on those particular works. At worst, Origen believed in too many books, but not too few, putting out those works which were accepted almost universally, save Rome’s rejection of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Greeks’ rejection of the Revelation during the 4th century.
To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
“At worst, Origen believed in too many books”
Thank you for proving my point.
245
posted on
07/14/2013 5:41:36 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
To: CynicalBear
Ok, if it’s not the Catholic church, who is it CB?
246
posted on
07/14/2013 5:42:07 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
To: JCBreckenridge
>> Is that what you believe, CB?<<
Ive told you before. I believe what scripture teaches. Not what the RCC has corrupted. Twisting my words or injecting something I didnt say then asking a leading question is reminiscent of Satans comments to Eve.
247
posted on
07/14/2013 5:43:48 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
To: Arthur McGowan
>>Of all the arguments anyone could concoct against the idea that the saints can pray for us, the fact that they are dead has to be the most lamebrained.<<
Oh really?
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
248
posted on
07/14/2013 5:45:30 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
To: Salvation
“Saint” Michael is an archangel and praying to him is futile. There is no hint anywhere in scripture that he’s at your, my or any other human’s beck and call. He and all angelic beings are recorded as being quite fearsome, but have only been messengers to humanity, not from humanity.
There are occultists, those who practice so-called “Enochian” magic, who believe themselves to be able to summon angels to do their bidding. Is this a good thing to you?
To: CynicalBear
Then arguing that ‘Catholics pray to the dead’ is a lie. If Catholics believe that the dead are alive in Christ, then Catholics are not praying to the dead.
250
posted on
07/14/2013 5:45:52 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
To: CynicalBear
Not what the RCC has corruptedOpinion is the lowest form of knowledge - Plato.
251
posted on
07/14/2013 5:46:53 PM PDT
by
Revolting cat!
(Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
To: metmom
>>Catholics can deny all they want that other Catholics pray TO the dead FOR things, but a cursory look at their prayers demonstrates otherwise.<<
Total hypocrisy. Sad thing is they believe it.
252
posted on
07/14/2013 5:47:47 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
To: JCBreckenridge
You didnt read the whole post again did you.
253
posted on
07/14/2013 5:50:47 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
To: JCBreckenridge
“Jerome believed that the language of the original must dominate.
Again, this is not hard to find.”
In his translations. It doesn’t mean that he put out books merely because he had no Hebrew copies. It doesn’t put out his detailed explanation of the Jewish system, and therefore his suspicion for anything not accepted by them.
“The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is, ‘Law.’
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, which among them is called Joshua ben Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah; the sixth, Jeremiah; the seventh, Ezekiel; and the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among them Thare Asra.
To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job; the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms. The third is Solomon, in three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth; Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth; and the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim. The sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more descriptively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Law; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the ancient Law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb and offer their crowns with lowered visage, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and will be.
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon.” (Jerome’s Prologue to the Books of the Kings)
That nothing that has no Hebrew original, and exists only as a writing in the Greek, is put out, is simply a coincidence with his knowledge of what the Jews did and did not consider to be scripture.
To: CynicalBear
I’m honestly curious. If it’s not the Catholic church, who is it?
255
posted on
07/14/2013 5:52:25 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
To: JCBreckenridge
“Thank you for proving my point.”
So far, I’m not even convinced you know what your point is.
To: CynicalBear
Nah.
You had better study your Greek. Peter, GR. - Petra - rock.
Peter is from the Greek word for rock, Petra. Jesus was directly referring to Peter and his mission on Earth - to establish His Church. “Upon THIS rock (Peter), I will build my Church”
Without Peter, would there be a Church?
But in closing. We all digress here.
It is NOT an argument.
It is a decision...
257
posted on
07/14/2013 5:53:07 PM PDT
by
Paisan
To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
“is simply a coincidence”
Right, a coincidence with 100 percent congruence.
258
posted on
07/14/2013 5:53:27 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
To: Salvation; metmom
>> So is asking St. Michael to throw Satan into hell a good thing for you?<<
No, its not. Do you not read scripture? God has already said what will happen to Satan and when. Do you honesty want to subvert Gods plan? Why would you ask for something that is contrary to what God has ordained to happen?
259
posted on
07/14/2013 5:54:49 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
That Origen has too many books is still not the same as the modern canon. Is my point really that difficult to grasp?
260
posted on
07/14/2013 5:56:27 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson