Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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 can’t 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 people’s 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 don’t 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.”

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 person’s 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 can’t 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” can’t 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 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
To: Kenny Bunk

Lol! I wold be your sister....and you did not answer my question.

;-/


101 posted on 07/14/2013 4:16:55 PM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: piusv
"If we can ask sinners on Earth to pray to Jesus for us, why wouldn’t we want to ask those saints already in Heaven to do the same for us?"

I guess if they relayed it to the only mediator It could work but when I'm praying I prefer to go directly to the source. That's why I don't pray for live or dead Christians to pray for me. I don't know that dead people can hear prayer to relay them second hand to Jesus in the first place and I know non-present live people can't. But hey, whatever works for you. I merely said that Jesus is the only mediator.

102 posted on 07/14/2013 4:18:27 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Wonderful resources! ;-)


103 posted on 07/14/2013 4:19:00 PM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Ok, so when did the NT canon appear with the same list of books we use today?

This shouldn’t be a difficult question for ‘sola scripturists’.


104 posted on 07/14/2013 4:19:12 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

“Which was the first codex published with the NT Canon in the modern form?”


As has already been answered: The first collection of the New Testament would have been published by the Apostles, with copies being made and gathered by the church, as already previously argued, and as evidenced in their widescale availability seen with the early Christians in the latter 1st and early 2nd century. Unless there is a difference in the scripture between then and what is now “modern,” regardless of whether it appeared in a book, or in rolled up scrolls, then the “first... published” date is as already specified.


105 posted on 07/14/2013 4:19:45 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Catholics don’t pray to saints.


106 posted on 07/14/2013 4:20:02 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Ahhh so you are questioning whether the Bible is the Word of God because there isn’t a published date for the original documents. Of which there are multiple copies/sources of every word of the modern bible minus about 2 sentences.

Many of which reside in the Vatican.


107 posted on 07/14/2013 4:20:18 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

So you’re saying then, “I don’t know”.

Thank you.

For your edification - the Vulgate published in 400 AD by Pope Damasus was the first canon with all the books.


108 posted on 07/14/2013 4:21:36 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

I can pray to the Son of God who sits at the right hand of God and possesses all the powers of Heaven.

Why pray to a sinner who was only saved by the blood of Jesus?


109 posted on 07/14/2013 4:22:15 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
"For your edification - the Vulgate published in 400 AD by Pope Damasus was the first canon with all the books."

How in the world could you ever know that?

110 posted on 07/14/2013 4:23:12 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

Thanks! It was something else to save all my links and change computer systems, but my son helped me a lot.


111 posted on 07/14/2013 4:23:28 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

“The first collection of the New Testament would have been published by the Apostles”

[[citation needed]]

“with copies being made and gathered by the church”

[[citation needed]]

“as evidenced in their widescale availability”

The earliest complete codexes that we possess are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Amitianus. Neither of which contain the modern NT canon.

So the only actual extant textual evidence shows this statement to be false.

You need to read up on Marcion. There wasn’t a ‘canon’ in the time of the Apostles.


112 posted on 07/14/2013 4:23:48 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: piusv

pray to Jesus. praying to dead humans is not Christian.

Heaven is not a vast socialist bureaucracy


113 posted on 07/14/2013 4:23:57 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

The Holy Scriptures alone are God-breathed and able to make a man of God complete.

_______________________________

That’s an important teaching...so it must state that somewhere in the Bible but you, nor anyone else has shown me

1. where in the Bible it states that the Bible alone is the source of our teaching...
2. what the Bible states is the pillar of truth for us.

Gee....


114 posted on 07/14/2013 4:24:25 PM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge; annalex

That’s true — pinging annalex on this too.


115 posted on 07/14/2013 4:24:31 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
Ms. Marmelstein, let us not forget that we are considering the Roman Catholic Church. Are we supposed to drop the glorious world of Greece and Rome ... including gods, goddesses, nymphs, satyrs, festivals, etc. etc. ... all of a sudden like? Ma no, per Bacco! They should have a chance to become Christian, too.

Plus, you can get angry with a Saint in many quaint and colorful ways that would be totally inappropriate with the Big Guy, hai capito? You lose the car keys, this is God's Fault? Of course not, But you know that St. Anthony, where the Hell is he when he should be on the job? "Yo, Tony, wake up. Keys! Now!" Works-a for me.

Now as a certified(able)Anglo-Catholic, I do get a bit squeamish on the body parts ex voto thing, but who could not be moved by the Shrines of Chimayo, or St. Anne de Beaupré. OK, they look a little like really bad-fitting prosthetic factories, but whatever.

116 posted on 07/14/2013 4:25:17 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk ("Obama" The Movie. Introducing Reggie Love as "Monica.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

We don’t pray “to” the saints as you say. We only ask them to pray for us. Nothing wrong with that, is there.


117 posted on 07/14/2013 4:25:44 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

We have two codexes published before this, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that have lists that differ from each other and the modern canon.

We have extant codexes published after this that have the full canon. Again, this is what the Vulgate was - a codification of the modern biblical NT canon.

You can also read the discussion by the Church fathers, and read the discussion surrounding Marcion over the correct canon. While it is true that there was substantial agreement on the content - that bible you have in your hands today owes it’s format to the Vulgate published by the Catholic church in the late 4th and early 5th century.


118 posted on 07/14/2013 4:27:29 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

And the New Testament was written and handed down to the church as they were being produced.

_______________________________

So who made the decision as to what would be included in the Bible and when did this decision take place?


119 posted on 07/14/2013 4:28:14 PM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

Apparently his bible lacks the word ‘sufficient’.


120 posted on 07/14/2013 4:28:36 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson