The objection is praying to anyone other than the Creator. That is most certainly not "counter scriptural"
The first verse which you cite, you then here quote incompletely.
You ARE wasting your time, not for reason that I am not Christian, but instead for reason that each and every "reasoning" which you indulge in, doesn't quite do what you claim it does, in that in each instance you have added elements of interpretation to get to the hoped for "therefore", which are not "there" in the first place (but which you otherwise claim is in those passages). Instead, your additions are simply 'fleshly mind' distortions of spiritual things, struggling to understand (or express?) that which cannot be understood with natural mind intellect, as is alluded to in Romans 8.
Verse 27 of that chapter;
Here we see the Spirit [of God] interceding for the saints. Paul does not speak of "saints" interceding for saints --- but that does seem to be what you yourself are teaching can and does occur. Excuse me -- but I do find it safer to stick with Paul. Was there any contemporary of Paul whom refuted him in this? If so, where? Where exactly is it written that were are to (or are even allowed to, or recommended to) "pray to saints"?
Having life more abundantly... could well enough include touching upon eternal life --- but it certainly is not giving clear support for the added "responding to prayers" ability which you have claimed to be attributed to "saints" and upon which the addressing of prayers to specific "saints" much depends.
That aspect or idea, going contrary to much else which is spoken of in the Word, is being read into the passages which you cite, for that passage which you cited (John 10:10) and any other of the cited passages does not say any such thing. None of them are the "abundant examples" which you have claimed are in scripture for there being some continuing role for those who pass on to then become or act "as angels", save for by special pleading and private interpretation....for in each and every instance as your own efforts of explanation gives evidence for, there needs be some added reading in-between-the-lines to get the passages which you cite to "say" that which you are claiming they do.
Which leaves the problem with your presentation two-fold, in that in addition to having to squint mightily to "see" what you say is written of (found between the lines as it were) one must also be in some opposition to how Paul spoke of spiritual truths, with the one example I offered above being but one part of wider tapestry of Judaic monotheism, itself.
You really should give up accusing Protestants of being "illogical" or "unscriptural", when what is in actuality being opposed, are aspects of "tradition" and interpretation of scripture, which has grown bit by bit to include (among other things) praying to the dead --- in that this praying to them, includes special attention be given to, and received from, those individuals singularly.
Communion of the saints --- as is otherwise spoken of in scripture and in the most primitive church (the first couple of centuries) is nowhere suggested to be like that --- as in calling out just one among many for special consideration, to "pray to" for their own direct intercession --- as is so often otherwise presented by Roman Catholics. RC'ers may talk about "communion of the saints" (and other Christians not) but what is presented in the stead of the original understandings, in later applications comes across as some form of paganism, sporting "Christian" livery. Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky...like a thief coming into to steal and destroy...and in this case... to supplant, confuse, distract -- whatever can be gotten away with.
The passage speaking of "not marrying or being married in the Resurrection", but shall be as the angels of God in heaven" could as well be restricted in meaning as to the first portion of the passage.
The focus shifted from "not marrying of being married" but being "as angels of God" is then itself subjected to further speculations regarding angels themselves (of what they are in actuality, is less than clear) then comes a parallel, from which by strength of your own words (not the scripture itself) is imposed the additional idea of an ability to "respond to prayers" aspect, which evidence for is most certainly not explicitly spoken of in the passage which you cite. Nor can one get there from a wider reading of the chapters and portions of scripture from which context the passages have been removed from. Even if angels are seen to be sent by God -- that is not exactly showing evidence of themselves hearing and answering prayers (which is what you are trying to establish prayed to heavenly "saints" are capable of). It's one loosey-goosey thing after another, from you. So many errors, so much assumption, all compacted one upon another in a dense mass --- good grief such theology is difficult to straighten. The acronym fubar (fouled up beyond all repair) comes to mind...
It is becoming more apparent all the time, that which you are offering here is just so much more of the "SOLO scriptura" thingy upon which the "sola ecclesia" approach so often relies. Taking scriptures out of context -- is sign they are being cited in support of a pretext. I'll not allow you to so easily get away with then folding the "pretexts" which you bring, INTO the texts themselves. Sorry Charlie, the scripture passages which you cite --- do not establish what you say they do.
Though angels can be and are indeed sent, and are sent by God as messengers --- there is zero evidence they go and do other than by direction of the Lord (who obviously must have Himself heard or been aware of whatever prayers or conditions He Himself would chose to answer or address) unless we are speaking of fallen angels, who followed the one who thought he was as good as God.
Those (fallen) beings act autonomously. In contrast --- those whom did not or have not fallen, are said to be forever "beholding the face of God". Yet still, nowhere is it recommended to "pray" to them, beseeching them, or even asking angels to "pray for us". You lose again...
Instead, we are pointedly warned to not follow the preaching of any other, even an angel, if it depart from what is more simply seen to be Gospel message. There is no reason to think what IS written -- is in some way incomplete, either --- as in there having been some additional "oral tradition" significantly differing from that which is written (and accepted as Gospel), particularly when such information can be seen to have arisen only centuries later(!), but is pointed at today as some sort of bail-out from criticisms of RC theology frequently lacking firm scriptural foundation.
That message Galations 1:8-10 includes the theology of there being only One "God".
> 8. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! 10. Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.Thus --- your argumentation here miserably fails. It's too bad you can't see it. I don't know if the truth will ever sink in, for yourself and others blinded by certain *particular* aspects of Roman Catholicism. Am I just wasting my time, with you? Perhaps, but others may hear myself and others in this --- and be informed by the process of open discussion.
I do not usually aim towards attempting to steer Roman Catholics entirely away from their "church", but more only certain theological aspects, hoping to not throw out the baby with the bathwater--- yet it is a challenging undertaking, being that in so many ways theology and rhetoric having developed within Roman Catholicism holds Christ as veritable hostage (or at least appears to attempt to do so).
So if it takes some leaving to get clear of it all, then so be it. But for those I will plead, please, please, please if you do leave the RCC, take the name of Jesus with you, for there is no other name under the sun by which any will be "saved".
Therefore? Not really...but in this effort of interpretation of scripture (Matthew 22:30), what becomes apparent but a substitution or confusion of spirits of those whom are passed on, with the Holy Spirit? In the end, it can become a supplanting of the Spirit, with these lesser beings being used as substitution even for God's own Holy Spirit, and a bypassing of the principle that we all can (because of Christ's own sacrifice) now speak with and commune with God directly. By the sacrifice of Christ, by his own blood given entirely even unto His own worldly death (of the flesh -- His own) full payment has been made for us, for our own sins. Thus, much as the priest whom once a year would enter into the holy of holies to make sacrifice for the people, Christ himself is our high priest, and the needed sacrifice, itself. He is at once the God whom demands retribution and justice, and the payment in full which wipes away the stain and blots of our own sins --- even the sins of the entire world. Is not that, the Gospel truth? Somebody...anybody...can I get an "amen"?
NOWHERE is it recommended any should pray "to" angels. In fact, such forms of worship can be otherwise seen to have been prohibited. God is a jealous God.
Here, the clearer revelation which shall be enjoyed by those whom will become fully "hid in Christ" is being confused with intellectual "ability". Revelation itself does not give "ability" to "answer prayers", or act as an angelic messenger, but instead opens up understanding. All shall be revealed. To then add additional (but unsaid in the above quote) ability to "do" to intercede for the living and interact with those on earth, on basis of first pointing towards what you term "intellectual ability" is to stretch even your own words and interpretation by way of additional extrapolation. Why go to all this effort to so purposefully confuse this with "ability" (which is otherwise more simply a fuller knowing) into ability to "answer" prayer, intercede on behalf of the living, etc. Why pray to a saint at all, if they be as angels? Do we pray to "angels"? We could have and should have stuck with the simpler "not be married or given in marriage" description. Since when are angels but servants of God? In comparison, Christ, speaking for God the Father, tells his followers "I call you no longer servants, but friends", with it also written that the angels are jealous of the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which we (humans) can know and be shown things of the God in manner which even they whom continually behold the face of God cannot experience.
Where in the scripture does Christ tell anyone directly --- you will become as angels, then be my messengers, and by that method I shall make intervention in the world, acting through you as intermediaries?
It is one thing for Him to utilize we who are living in this realm, to assist others also living in this realm. It is quite another to assign those same persons attributes more properly seen as belonging to God Himself, as evidenced by the (or His) Holy Spirit. If there be those "saints" now passed on and present with Him when He "moves" or speaks -- then so be it. Yet to put those "saints" foremost in much of any regard, is very shaky theological ground.
Fulfilling "requests from God"??? Interact with us as angels do? You base this on another of your manufactured "therefore's". Just STOP it! Scripture itself states no such role for human beings.
Is the Holy Spirit in some manner insufficient? I all but asked you that question previously, when I asked "is His arm foreshortened?" But true to (RC) form --- that question was seemingly ignored. I don't think you are quite grasping the concept, or it's significance.
Where is it written that saints who shall pass on (and be with Christ, even "hid" in Christ) shall themselves be intermediaries?
Instead, NT scripture indicates we can commune directly with the Creator Himself by the Spirit. It is much as the priests of the Hebrew Temple, entering the holy of Holies, communed with God there at the mercy seat, directly with the Creator of the universe. Did He show up in the flesh --- or was it Spirit, even the "Holy Spirit"? I cannot but assume that for our present day condition, living as human beings upon earth, that we should believe that was so.
And now...the veil of the Temple has been rent asunder, from top to bottom, allowing one to see inside, even as is also written "in the latter days I shall pour out my Spirit upon all flesh".
All this veneration of bones and other "relics" --- beyond the care given to the remains of the departed --- what is it? In the Roman Catholic pantheon, in regard of relic as is being sought to here apply, such ideas seemed to have developed (regressed?) to make the bones themselves a medium of communication, in that there is a sense that "interacting" with the bones, is connected to "interacting" with a particular person now deceased (passed on from earthly life) but still living beyond this realm, in a spiritual realm.
That sort of "spiritual view" smacks of paganism, up one side and down the other, squeezed in, dressed up with "Christian" clothes. Under that disguise it is just the old paganism which has long been spread widely through out the world, revisited.
Pagans worship their own ancestors and others in that manner. That should be a big clue that doing so, or tending towards doing so (since nothing of the sort is contemplated in the Hebrew, or OT scripture) is fraught with error. The "teaching" on the subject which you are engaging in, is as the blind leading the blind...ignoring as it does that which was revealed to the Hebrews as to the nature of the One True God.
By giving NO acknowledgement that there are varying versions of the MartPol...including the significant problem of the account not surfacing until some time early in the 3rd century ...with traces of it from there showing evidence of having been much tampered with, over span of later centuries--- THAT is how you are ducking the question, by way of ducking that aspect of the issue.
By which I mean -- there is little reason to regard the MartPol as some form of infallible holy writ from which then further interpretation and flights of fancy can be added to, in effort to confect actual support for "praying to saints" and the "veneration" of relics. Salvaging his carcass, and giving it a proper burial is one thing. Praying to the body or bones as some holy thing in of itself, worthy of worship (oh excuse me -- just "veneration") is far too much like ancestor worship --- like the pagans of Rome itself upon occasion may have indulged themselves in, albeit in their instance much influenced by Greek mythology which had proceeded them, leaving them praying to ancient ancestors said to now be Gods (in some instances). Hail Zeus, by Jove! --- which no Jew worth their salt would ever contemplate.
Besides, like I said, your first use the MartPol was a failure (I told you why) in that it didn't quite lead to being some reason or seed for "Protestants" objecting to "praying to saints", in the manner which you originally portrayed the objection. Your answer -- based much upon inclusion of a priori INSULT aimed at all "protestants". Yet Roman Catholics continually whine about how they are so unfairly picked on. Cry me a river, oh ye whiny papists. [see defintion #2]
Yet now, the focus has shifted. I am rapidly tiring of the continual strawman tactics, this misrepresentation of the reasons for the objections, after I have (and a great many others over the years) have touched upon the actual basis for the objection again and again and again. Not being able to withstand the objection on face of it's own merits --- what are "protestants" then subjected to but all manner of "special pleading" "reading in-between-the-lines" packaged often times with gratuitous insult?
Which is why I must stand with the more ancient Jewish outlook concerning this. They had no pantheon of departed to pray to. Even though their own eyes were much veiled to Christ Himself (as a person) the Christ was present with them, even from before the Exodus (deliverance) out of Egypt. He was present too in the Tabernacle itself, in form of the manna which God directed to be displayed "ever before" Himself and the Law, the same being directed to being displayed "ever before" the people, also. Chew on that, for a while...
Maybe you are wasting your time you ask? Perhaps, but obviously you are wasting mine, with all these extra add-ons which are "reasoned" into the passages, which are then portrayed as being basis for passed on "saints" themselves "being as angels" or the like, rhetorically given the ability to intervene on our behalf --- or as also suggested --- used as angels are, as messengers which may visible appear.
You still did not answer why we should ignore Christ's direct instruction to pray to the Father, in his(Christ's) name. I asked you to not answer me at all, if you would not face that aspect.
You didn't, but instead doubled down on the same 'ol same 'ol, directing prayer to anything but God (as much as can be gotten away with, without giving up the "game") which game is seemingly anything but Christ, at every opportunity. Or if Christ --- nope --- not for you sinners! No way Jose. For "priests" only! Get down on your knees before us, ye sinners --- or be forever and completely blocked from Christ, as in no one can get to Jesus without going through or bowing down, being "subjected to" the RC first! --- or face the wrath of God all alone, on your own! I'm so sick of hearing it, I could puke.
"Christ himself is our high priest, and the needed sacrifice, itself. He is at once the God whom demands retribution and justice, and the payment in full which wipes away the stain and blots of our own sins --- even the sins of the entire world. Is not that, the Gospel truth?"
Amen!
"I'm so sick of hearing it, I could puke."
Amen
AMEN!!!!
Again, for a Jew that would be a natural objection; for someone who calls himself Christian this is a grave theological error that contradicts the Holy Scripture and does not recognize the reality of the Communion of saints. In the New Testament, we see multiple instances when intercessory prayer is both offered and asked for. See Romans 15:30, 2 Corinthians 13:7-9, Acts 8:24, 1 Timothy 2:1-6, James 5:16. It is of course true that any prayer to a saint is a prayer to Christ, but if you understood the nature of Catohlic prayer you would not be "objecting".
I still don't understand how the superior faculties of saints compared to me who have not yet tasted death and went to heaven are not proven definitively by the scripture in focus. Here it is again, for your convenience (from my 169):
I understand that the focus of these passages is sometime other than what a saint can or cannot do; but nevertheless this is Holy Inerrant Scripture referring to their faculties in a direct unambiguous way, and I believe the scripture, and you should too.
I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly. (John 10:10)This shows that a life of a saint is abundant compared to unbeliever; "that they may have" indicates that it is the life not yet given them rather the natural life they already have. This alone should destroy the Protestant superstition that saints are somehow dead, cannot respond to prayers, etc.
in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.(Matthew 22:30)This shows that the saint is like an angel. But what is an angel? - A messenger of God. Saints therefore can and do fulfill requests from God and interact with us like angels do.
Know you not that we shall judge angels? (1 Corinthians 6:3)This shows that the state of a saint is higher than an angel; while the saint possesses the faculties of an angel, his are even greater.
We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known (1 Corinthians 13:12)This shows that the intellectual ability of a saint exceeds our abilities before death.
Romans 8:27
That indeed shows that the Holy Spirit indwells in a saint and acts through him (see also Philippians 2:13, for example). It does not mean a saint, driven by the same Holy Spirit cannot intercede to Christ for us. onsider, for example,
I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: for kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times (1 Timothy 2:1-6)
Here, of course, we see living Christians praying for others, not yet saints in heaven praying. But the principle of intercessory prayer is therefore firmly biblical. Surely we don’t imagine St. Paul telling Timothy: "once you die and go to heaven, don’t forget to stop all your prayers at once". The Holy Scripture is given us to shape our behavior both now and after we die.
Neither do I understand what your problem with the translation of Martyrdom of St. Polycarp is, that I use. do you have a different translation? Bring it up. Do you have the original? Let us look at it together.
If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (Gal. 1:9)
Indeed; this is why the Holy Church would not canonize a heretic with his own gospel, like Luther or Calvin or the rest of the Protestant gang of shysters. They are all anathema (different gospel) and so will remain.