Featured Praying to the dead - should Christians do it?

That's true Mary never learned English but the Galileans spoke languages they probably never learned in other people tongues on Pentecost. Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit couldn't instantaneously translate a foreign tongue for you to understand?

So what about Lazerus? I'm sure Mary and Martha spoke to him though he had died? And Note Jesus is God true but he is also a man. Therefore in both capacities he spoke with Moses and Elijah. Not really having an issue with it.

The elders? I have no idea. Do you?

 

He certainly was communicating with them and prayer is no more than communication and/or a petition. As far as being in Heaven where God is (in this case a "cloud") is heaven. But they were on the MT. as well.

You are right there is figurative language. However, it is clear Elders are presenting prayers of the Saints to God as Heaven is being discribed. I find that curious. Why aren't the saints imaged as bringing their own prayers each with their own bowl? I believe the figurative language is discribing the intersessory prayers of those in Heaven as they bring out petitions before God.

The significant difference is that its not the saints who have these attributes but seems that there is a means by which God provides them the bowls of prayers. And also note Heaven is outside space time So who knows what can be percieved in that state? After all the end the middle and begining are all jumbled in the Book which John experiences the Glory yet to come.

Again what is significant about Catholic prayers to Saints is that it reveals in them the firm belief in the resurrection of those in Christ and the Glory of the Life found in Christ.

We know from scriptures we will recieve crowns. We also know that our glorified bodies is beyond our understanding. And if its anything like Jesus' resurrected body who could suddenly appear out of thin air and move unrestricted between Jerusalem, and Galilee. It may indeed not seem so strange to us. But this view is certainly an affirmation of the resurrection power of Jesus Christ.

 

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

You are alive in Christ if you are saved and still living.
Mary, the apostles, and even Moses and Lazarus are all part of the "dead in Christ." All the saved that have died before us are the dead in Christ. The resurrection has not yet taken place.
The tomb of Mary still exists--somewhere. Her remains are out there.
The tombs of all the apostles are still with us. They are all buried to this day.
Wander around the cemeteries. Take a good look at the tomb stones. If those that are buried were saved they are "the dead in Christ." If not they will spend an eternity in hell for they were without Christ.

The dead in Christ shall rise first. That will happen at the resurrection.
Mary will be a part of that resurrection. Her body has not yet been resurrected. You cannot prove something from silence.

 

I myself believe in 'soul sleep.'

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't believe the soul is asleep in the grave. I believe it is asleep in Christ in Heaven just as Lazarus was resting in Abram's bosom in Luke 16.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 tells us that those who are asleep in Christ will God bring with Him.

I believe the body itself is dead in the grave, but the soul is asleep in Christ in Heaven. When Christ comes to call the Church unto Himself, He will bring those who are asleep (the souls) with Him to reunite with the bodies that are presently in the grave.

Remember the story in the Kings about the boy that died? The prophet prayed that the boy's soul should return to his body. When the soul returned, the body was alive once again.

When the soul that Christ brings with Him is reunited with the body, the body will be alive once more.

Now, if my belief is correct, that the soul is asleep in Christ in Heaven just as Lazarus was resting in Abram's bosom, then if Mary was saved, her soul is also asleep in Christ in Heaven. If she is asleep, she cannot hear prayers anyway.

 

for me the thing comes down to this.
The ONLY intercessor the Bible speaks of is Christ. He is now THE priest for us.
The only prayer mentioned in the Bible is prayer to God.

No where does it list any one or anything else that is to be prayed to.

Saints who have gone on before are still the creations of the creator. The creator is worthy of our prayer, the creations are not.

 

I assume you agree with soul sleep as well? How is it then the White Robed army of Martyrs can call out to God for Justice in Heaven if they haven't first been raised? We can go round and round but like I said before. The Catholic belief is an attestation to the firm belief in the resurrection and life ever after in Christ our Lord.

 

That white robed army has been raised. The resurrection takes place in Chapter 4 of Revelation. The army is later.

 

No I don't believe in soul sleep.
By the time one gets to Revelation 7, the rapture has already taken place.
What John sees, he sees with spiritual eyes. I still take it literally, but even John had not died yet and was miraculously transported into heaven, and allowed to see these things. God allowed him, so that he might bring us this revelation. This is an exception.
There is no evidence for the assumption of Mary, or the resurrection of others. They are the dead in Christ, as the Bible says they are. We are not to pray to them. It is that simple. To do so is idolatry. It is a transgression of the Ten Commandments.

 

So you don't believe in the Assumption of Enoch or Elijah, nor the resurrection from the dead, nor being alive in Christ and the communion of the entire body of Christ? That is a shame. I do believe in those things. And if it happened to Enoch and Elijah it could happen again. If the dead rose and appeared to people in Jerusalem at the death of Jesus Christ, I believe it can happen again. And I don't think Jesus was committing Idolatry when he spoke to Moses who had died on Nebo during the conversation on the Mount of Transfiguration. And I do believe that the Elders did present the prayers of the Saints to God.

You believe making any image after anything created in Heaven above or on the Earth or underneath the earth is idolatry Yet scriptures tell me that God Commanded Moses to make an image of Cherubim which would be an image of some in heaven above. Therefore I can't take your perspective as 1) evidence that scripture doesn't refer to them. nor 2) that speaking to saints is idolatry. After all you were wrong about image unless you want to question the Character of God and suggest he broke his own Law.

 

So, the same old straw man arguments that we have heard so many times before. Have you read some of the other threads where I rebuked the poster for using a "could have" defense. That is your argument here. God "could have" sent the Israelites Hershey Bars instead of manna, but he didn't. God "could have" made us in the image of "the Vulcan" (Star Trek) but he didn't. God "could have" sent Jesus to earth in a space ship, but he didn't. The "could have" argument doesn't work with me. It is a silly argument from silence.

I believe what the Bible says about them. And if the Bible says they were translated into heaven, then so be it. That doesn't mean it holds true for others. The "could have" argument is null and void.

A total non sequitor.
The resurrection is still a future event, unless you are speaking of the resurrection of Christ. I believe in both.

I have already told you that all believers now, living, are "alive in Christ."

No, I don't believe in the RCC interpretation of the above statement. Is it a shame that I don't believe in Catholic theology when years ago I put Catholic theology on one side of the desk and the Bible on the other, and the obvious decision was that the Bible was right and the RCC was wrong. I chose the Bible over the RCC.

I don't understand why people choose to believe in heresy.

The "Mars Bar" "could have" come from Mars, but I doubt if it did.
The moon "could have" been made from green cheese. Maybe it is.
But "could have" is your silly argument, not mine. I don't argue from ridiculous silence. I debate from facts. The facts are stated in the Word of God. There is nothing in the Word of God about Mary being assumed, just as there is nothing in science about the moon being made of green cheese. The likelihood of either are about the same. The "could have."

Another "could have" argument. It "could be" that we will be riding bicycles with our dogs beside us in heaven also. It just "could be." It "could" happen. Anything "could". Maybe, just maybe, our resurrected bodies "could be" like monkeys. Who knows? You can read anything you want into the Bible with your "could have" arguments. Arguments from silence are so much fun aren't they?

Who said he was?

And so? What is your point? That passage has already been explained.

First, was it an image of God?
Second, was it an image to replace God?
Third, was it an image to be worshiped or prayed to?

The cherubims were never addressed nor spoken to in their image form.
When John bowed down to an angel he was sharply rebuked by that angel.

God did not break his own law; but the RCC certainly did.

 

When Catholics speak of Mary's assumption they speak it as being translated to heaven. So the concept is the same. Note in the Catholic view Mary may have either died, was raised from the dead and assumed into heaven. I mention this because considering Moses at the Mt. of Transfiguration someone mentioned the assumption of Moses which the NT writer Jude refers to. The assumption of Moses isn't canon but the part that is inspired Jude refers to Michael fighting over the body of Moses. Though nowhere in canon is this related. But it seems generally accepted by at least Jude. Therefore there is precedent that this kind of thing has happened before and is not unique to the Catholic view regarding Mary. Your major issue is that scriptures do not mention Mary's assumption. However, you ignore an important aspect about the bible. Its primary concern is salvation history. Anything that doesn't pertain to it or it beyond the regional scope of the scriptures isn't mentioned. Japan isn't mentioned in scriptures nor is the continents of North and South America. In both cases it is outside the scope of the bible to discuss these locations. So I believe it is outside the scope of scriptures to record (save for brief mention in Jude) the assumption of Moses or the assumption of Mary. But it is not incongruent with scriptures to believe Mary was assumed into heaven as two prophets before her were translated into heaven as well which were recorded in scriptures. Do you believe people after the writing of the NT were raised from the dead? Brought back to life? If you do why don't you say well it doesn't say it in the bible? Well, because as you and I both know the bible attests to people being raised from the dead on several occasions. Therefore precedent has been set where which one can believe the claim long after the last writing of the NT text that someone had died but God brought them back. Also nowhere in scripture does God say only Enoch and Elijah will be assumed into heaven. So there is no limit on the number of times God can assume someone into heaven. This being the case it is reasonable to belief that Mary could indeed have been assumed into heaven without the requirement of it being written in scripture.

Well, we don't really know who wrote Hebrews but possibly the book was written before the assumption of Mary in any case what I find more fantastic is that we don't have a tomb for Mary. Nor are there reliquaries for Mary. There are no Marian bones to be found. We have bones for Peter and Paul. We have their tombs located but not for Mary. I believe that is telling.

I actually have a copy of the assumption of Moses and I don't see how you are relating it to speaking to Moses who died unless you are saying Michael took Moses' body and Moses was raised back to life. In which case the prohibition in Isaiah 8:19 which doesn't apply to Moses also since the same parameters are met with Mary, don't apply to Mary either.

Certainly, I believe that as well. However, I don't that just because the "saints who die are raised first" means that they are in stasis. In some sort of non active state. I believe their spirits are with God and are waiting for the resurrection. Which is why the Martyrs before the final resurrection can complain to God.

It is clear that Christians in Christ have died but that doesn't mean they aren't alive in Christ. Jesus told the thief "today you will be with me in Paradise". Obviously, one can therefore die yet be alive as long as they are in Christ. Those not in Christ are truly dead as they go for the second death the real death.

Prayer is communication, and can be a petition. Prayers to those who have gone to "their reward" are no more than petitions for prayer. But the actual catholic view is that the Kingdom of God (the Church or body of believers) transcends this world and is equally established in the heavenly realm. The Church exist in both places at once therefore those who are in heaven are still in the Church and have not therefore ceased being a member of the Church. Thus we are in communion with the entire church as it is one organism not multiple organisms that exist in heaven and on earth at the same time.

 

First, Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection. He is the first to be raised from the dead.
Second, who was raised from the dead after Christ? Aside from a few graves that opened after he rose, as one of the miraculous events that happened along with His resurrection, I know of none. Are you thinking of the bogus claims of Benny Hinn per chance? :smilewinkgrin:
http://www.pfo.org/tbn-dead.htm

When we speak of things outside of the Bible we generally speak of physical things that we can see and touch. You mentioned Japan. I flew over Japan, saw it with my own eyes. I also flew into Japan, stayed in Tokyo, met the people of Japan. I went; I saw; I was eyewitness to the Japanese and their land.
I was not eyewitness to the assumption of Mary.
Nor was God the Holy Spirit.
Nor was anyone in all of history.
There is not a shred of evidence anywhere.

"The assumption of Mary" is outside the physical realm. It is a matter of faith and that puts it in the realm of the metaphysical, the realm of faith. In all matters of faith and doctrine the Bible is our final authority. Perhaps not in geometry or in geography, but in religion, doctrine, those things that are in the realm of the metaphysical such as the assumption of Mary; yes the Bible is our final authority.

Japan and The Assumption are apples and oranges. There is no comparison.
Your "could have" argument is a logical fallacy which is a basic argument from silence.

 

I wonder who here believes that if Bibles were dropped from an airplane down among a tribe who had never read it, and the Bible was in the tribe's language, that after reading the Bible the tribe would adopt the RCC system and doctrines.

If the Bible is taken as final authority, there is no way anyone could be a Roman Catholic. The only way that can happen is if RC tradition is made equal to or placed above scripture.

However, that does raise an interesting question: Since all the non-Catholic denominations profess belief in the final authority of the Bible, and all of them believe their denomination is closest in its beliefs to the Bible, how would a tribe such as the aforementioned, presented with the beliefs of the different denominations, determine which indeed was closest to the scriptures? That is intriguing to me. Maybe that tribe would itself split into different denominations. Such is human nature.

But I think this is why some are drawn to Roman Catholicism: They want certainty. But it is certainty based on a hierarchy adding to scripture with traditions of men and making these traditions more weighty than or equally weighty with scripture, and telling the flock that this is what must be believed because the hierarchy says so.

As for me, I prefer the belief in the final authority of scripture, even though differences may and will occur. I prefer to be able to think for myself instead of being told what to think and believe in order to belong. And further, since the scriptures are the written record of the apostles' teachings and thus the written source and foundation of the faith, they must be considered the final authority.

 

I agree, I doubt they would. On the other hand, I doubt they would ended up being Baptist either. Most likely they would be confused not knowing how it pertained to them and would ask for explaining much like the Ethiopian Eunuch who answered this question:

Its not that the Bible is second place to Tradition. Its that the bible developed out of Tradition and can only be understood in that context. Not one word of the New Testament was written until 20 years after Jesus ascended into heaven and the Apostles began to preach. Therefore the infant Church was built up not by the written word but the oral teachings of the Apostles. Long before the first letter of the New Testament was written Christian Tradition was already well established. And in fact the New Testament came into existence because the Apostles wanted to provide a supplement to their teaching first by Testimony to the Teachings and Events in Jesus life which pertained to the already established Christian faith. Which is why each Gospel has different emphasis because each was written to a different audience and wanted to make specific points regarding the immediate audience concerned. Thus the Gospels aren't proper biographies as one would expect from a modern biography but are arranged in such a manner as to present already established teaching emphasizing the aspects in Jesus life and Ministry which pertained to the theology and faith the Apostles had been teaching. As John says in his Gospel

Thus showing that there were things that were left out because they didn't pertain specifically to the message the Apostles were trying to get across. Even the Letters of the NT were written to specific group of people to deal with specific issues. Therefore to take these writings outside of the context from the already established Christian Tradition established by the time of their writing would be detrimental to understanding the text so much so that even while Peter was still alive people were using Paul's writings to distort the Apostolic teachings (Tradition) thus the faith

So we see these scriptures were not created in a vacuum but in the environment of an already established belief system that was spread by the Testimony of the Apostles and to try to understand the scriptures outside that context is at best misleading at worst leads to ones own destruction.

As for your claim "If the Bible is taken as final authority" I find it odd that the bible does not make that claim for itself if it was intended to be taken that way. Certainly you will refer to 2 Tim 3 which says

Which I must say where does it say it is the final authority much less the only authority on teaching of the faith? What it does say is that scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith. And that they are useful. Which I wholly agree that it does make you wise for salvation and it is useful instruction. It also can provide the information which helps complete the man by equipping or enabling him for good works. But it doesn't make the claim it is the only authority nor does it make the claim it is the final authority. However, what can be gleaned from that text which is often overlooked is this passage

Expressing two sources which formed Timothy's faith. 1) the direct teachings of those who passed on the faith orally (Traditions) and 2) the sacred writings (Scripture). Thus they work hand in hand to provide the fullness of teaching. So nowhere does scripture make the claim that it is the only authority or even that it alone is sufficient.

 

I understand how the Bible was developed, so you won't get any argument from me on that. Certainly there were oral teachings of the apostles -- "traditions", if you will -- prior to and concomitant to the scriptures. But since we don't know what these oral traditions were, how can we go by them when establishing doctrine? Indeed, we must be content to be assured that the scriptures are a written reflection of these oral traditions that were prior to and current with the scriptures. Thus, the scriptures, being the only record of the apostles' teachings, must be considered the source and foundation of the faith and consequently the final authority for doctrine. Now, traditions which developed after the apostolic age, oral or written, cannot be used to determine or establish doctrine, especially if these traditions contradict the sourcebook of the Christian faith: the Bible and specifically the New Testament, they being the written record of any prior oral tradition. If any such oral tradition did not get recorded in scripture, then it is not possible to establish doctrine from such absence.

As I have said, I highly value the writings of certain fathers, but I do not base my beliefs on what the fathers wrote. I also value historical context, but I do not base doctrine on it. I take both the fathers and historical context into account when reading scripture and trying to understand and determine correct Biblical teaching, but the Bible is the final authority for me. Since scripture is the only written record of the apostles and any oral tradition that existed at the time of the apostles, scripture must be taken as the final authority in establishing and determining doctrine, not some later tradition, not some father, not some religious hierarchy, not some institution claiming ultimate and final authority to determine and establish both acceptable tradition and acceptable Bible interpretation.

No, I cannot (and I believe God does not wish me to) put a hierarchy or institution between Him and me or between Him and His word in the scriptures.

 

You make a good point about the absence of Apostles and I might be inclined to agree with you except for two things. When the Apostle taught they made disciples such as Timothy who understood the context in the age which the New Testament and would be able and knowledgeable enough to say "you are mistaking Paul". And these out of these disciples they chose certain leaders like Timothy again to perpetuate the faith faithfully passing on the teachings Jesus gave to the Apostles who in turned faithfully passed it on to the elders of the Churches. To explain my meaning let me refer to Acts

So entrusting the teaching of the Faith (Traditions) to the elders Paul envisions that the perpetuity of the faith is reliant not on a book as much as Holy Spirit filled men whom he passed on the faith to. And so these men passed on to the next generation all the way to this day and there is a clear record of it. I also want to point out the issue which Paul brings up and I'm certain is on your mind. Which is

. Your contention may be that then these wolves and men twisting the faith may have rose up against the Church and over whelmed the faith entrusted by Paul to his followers leaving no real trace of Apostolic Tradition save in its written form. Which would mean that Jesus' promise to Peter and the Apostles when he said

would be false. Also it would assume that the Holy Spirit was incapable of keeping the Church in the faith through out its history. Yet, Jesus said

and again in Acts

But the perpetuity of the Church and the Faith is reliant on the Holy Spirit to keep it. Which is my second point with regard to keeping the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

Did you ever ask yourself what the Fathers agree on and held consistently to? They had their disagreements but they also had their agreements. What were they? What were they consistent about? I believe that is an important question and give evidence to what was generally accepted.

I personally think you are looking at that backwards. I believe he established the Church so that you might have the scriptures and the means to fellowship with God fully. Not to step in between you and him. Though I understand your perspective.

 

Praying to Mary and to the Saints is a Polytheism