Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As many posters have already said, Catholics do not believe that saints answer the prayers, but rather that they act as a "go-between" between other human beings and God, presenting their prayer requests to God in a better way.
God often chooses mere human beings to act as "go-betweens" in the communications between God and other human beings, and anyone who would deny that would be foolishly and willfully ignorant (and wrong).
For example, did God choose to write the books in the Bible with His own finger (as He easily could have), or did God always choose in His Sovereign Divine Power to always make use of mere human being go-betweens to write every single word and book in the Bible, every single time, combining the inspiration of God with the actual physical writing of a mere human being "go-between" for the entire Bible, in order to communicate with us?
If God does choose to use mere human beings to speak to us through them (such as in the written books of the Bible), then God is obviously NOT adverse to using mere human being go-betweens in God's communications with other human beings, and actually often chooses to communicate that way (via a go-between human being).
That’s what I thought, thank you.
That "point", if it is reliant upon Origen, does not extend towards the OT, for that collection was in no way in flux, according to Origen. For him, that was settled enough.
That many others also considered additional post Apostolic works as "divinely inspired" (not to be confused with fully infallible, perhaps) as far as what was by then spoken of by some as "New" Testament, gives strength to the listing of OT "books" Origen documented as being what was at his own time (and place) regarded as being what the Jews themselves, and those original Apostles (who were Jews) regarded as aligning with the idea of "canonical". I have to say it like that, for although the Jews had the concept of "canon", they didn't quite have a word that translates directly enough for it.
Would what Paul considered as 'canon' when Christ hung on the cross, be what teachings, knowledge & prophecy Christ came to fulfill? Or...can "Christians" coming along later, themselves not Jews, somehow know better than Jews what was the holy writ of the Jews? It matters not, that many did not recognize him. That too, was prophesied. But not all failed to see him for who he was, even from time of his confirmation (at 8 days old) at the Temple.
As to the proper contents of the OT, prior to Origen, Melito confirmed Josephus. Melito related he traveled from Sardis (in present-day Turkey) to Jerusalem to find out...since by his time, there was already some circulation of dispute.
But in Caesarea, it is doubtful there was ever any dispute (as to proper OT canon). There wasn't later, in Origen's time.
Basing OT on what was in LXX continually begs the question (oft asked but NEVER ANSWERED), which version of LXX? Besides, as it has been pointed out more than once, the original work of the 70, was only those books of the Law, or as otherwise known, the books of Moses. Some Jews called that "Torah", putting the books of the prophets, and other writings (like Psalms & Proverbs) somewhat aside as not to be held in as high regard, not to be confused with any other which had been directed by God for them to have written upon their hearts.
You do know the citations for that "written upon their hearts" idea? That is much the origin of sola scriptura principle, for it was tradition among the Jews from ancient times.
Aah, but what have we, but those who would set that "tradition" fully aside, even while pointing at their own traditions said to have come from Christ & the Apostles. There is a glaring inconsistency in the RCC, right there...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, if you explicitly and literally follow those instructions from Jesus that you quoted there ("When you pray, say...", you would never say ANY OTHER prayer using ANY OTHER words but the exact, specific words of the "Lord's Prayer", saying exactly what Jesus explicitly stated you should say there in Luke (or the more widely used variant in Matthew) -- the "Our Father".
Do you honestly and perfectly adhere to that, making the only prayer that you ever pray the "Our Father", or do you take that as just one form of prayer advocated and approved by Jesus, but not the only words to use, or the only good prayer, and personally say other prayers as well, using completely different words, which Jesus did NOT explicitly specify in Matthew or Luke or anywhere else in the Bible?
...there's no reason for any Christian to pursue the spiritual realm when we are already now ‘complete’ in Christ. To seek ‘something more’ in the spiritual realm is to accuse Christ of being insufficient to meet our needs....and defying Him for doing what He has clearly said not to do.
The fact is , many desire “Experiences” in the spiritual realm because they have not developed a relationship with Christ Himself...their practice is “religiosity” and “churchianity” instead of speaking directly and often with our Saviour as one would someone they love and admire...though of course it's much more than that when we do so.
....they cannot see that they need their faith to be stretched to “believe without seeing” or appealing to the senses, be it touch taste or feelings. They want proof...proof that He is ..and believe that “experiences” can attain this for them.
... Others have a desire to feel"special" or privileged....which comes from not accepting and believing the special and privileged state they already have in Christ.
Jesus Christ is truly and fully sufficient for each and every individual..and He said that He is..."My Grace is sufficient for thee"....
And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God's people.
Obviously there's no way a Catholic could understand this but the reference has nothing to do with the prayers of Spirit filled Christians...It is a dispensational truth that does not apply to Christians...A study of prayers as incense thru out the bible apparently would just confuse you more...
Our (Christian) prayers do go up as incense carried by angels or collected in golden bowls held by 24 elders who are playing harps before the Throne of God...
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
We have direct access to God...Our prayers do not go thru angels or elders...People can pray for us or with us...Our prayers do not go thru anyone...
It's all over the bible...It just doesn't use the specific words you are looking for...
The problem is this. The earliest LXX complete manuscript that we have is Codex Vaticanus. All the others are fragments and don’t provide a good answer to the question as to ‘what did the Jews at the time regard as canonical?’
What it does provide is that the LXX includes them. So even if one were to argue that they were of lesser value - the fact that Vaticanus does include them is substantial evidence in favor of the hypothesis that even if of lesser value they were still good enough to be considered canon.
The lists of the Church fathers reflects this too.
The argument that the protestant deuterocanon should not be included, is an argument that we find nowhere before the 16th century. Even though Jerome argues that they are of lesser value - in the end they were included. The only reason for the opinion of Luther is that he read the Vulgate and, not knowing the history behind it (generally being ignorant of such things), came to the conclusion that Jerome spoke for the Church at the time.
The problem is this - no one else took up that argument. There are exactly zero codices after Jerome that have Luther’s list. One would expect that if this position were held by substantial numbers of the Church that one would see this position show up. We don’t.
Instead what we do see are the same lists that the Vulgate has always had, the same list put forth many centuries previous.
I just don’t see any solid evidence to favor the protestant position. It would change if we had a complete LXX before the time of Christ - but we don’t have that.
That leaves us with the secondary sources.
“It just doesn’t use the specific words you are looking for”
So the bible says nothing of the sort until you interpolate it in. Interesting. What other interpolations have been inserted?
So, you use Ecclesiastes against Jesus Christ, who said that Abraham is alive, because God is the God of the living, not the dead.
bookmark.
Actually, freeper Paisan provided the correct response.
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Thank you, Phinneous, for your post. This tradition is further supported by 2 Macc. 15:12-16 – the high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah were deceased for centuries, and yet interact with the living Judas Maccabeas and pray for the holy people on earth.
In a later comment posted to this thread, freeper editor-surveyor states: Prayer to the dead is called necromancy, and is forbidden. When you pray to the dead, you are just attempting to contact another hopelessly lost soul.
Without any doubt Scripture condemns "necromancy." Consider Deuteronomy 18:10-12. The problem arises with the attempt to apply the term necromancy indiscriminately to mean all manner of communication with those who have died. This is an improper usage of the term. Dictionaries define necromancy as "conjuring up spirits" or "communication with the spirits of the dead in order to foretell the future, black magic or sorcery." When Catholics pray to saints, we do not "conjure up" spirits or tell fortunes. In fact, the Catholic Church is in complete agreement with the Bible when it condemns consulting "mediums" and "wizards."
Those who claim that God prohibits communicating with the dead in any sense run into a serious problem. Jesus would clearly be guilty in Luke 9:29-31.
According to Deuteronomy 34:5, Moses was a dead guy! And yet Jesus was communicating with him and Elijah about the most important event in human history—the Redemption. There is no contradiction here as long as one makes the distinction that is very clear in Scripture: there is an essential difference between going to "mediums" or "wizards" to conjure up the spirits of the dead and communicating—as Jesus did—with those we either hope (if they have not been canonized) or believe (if they have been canonized) died in friendship with God.
Look, a squirrel!
I think it is OBVIOUS!
MANY things are easily SAID: Protestants often criticize Catholics for clinging to religious dogma, when they don't realize that they are following Protestant dogmas, and erroneous interpretations of Scripture, which they mistake as their own infallible interpretation of Scripture.
Sure!
We do not ask the saints to perform miracles. Any miracle that happens as a result of their intercessory prayer (just like the prayer of our earthbound friends) is the direct result of God’s hand.
I can see how it would!
The prayers of MANY Catholics finally got the siege of NEW Orleans by Katrina lifted!
MANY things 'work' without our knowledge of HOW they do....
Yet one or more “miracles” is the criteria to BECOME a saint in the Catholic church.
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.