Interecessory Prayer/Communion of Saints: Biblical Support

[dadof10]

And in those added books there is a model for prayer for or to the dead.

"Those" books weren't added, they were subtracted by the reformers. The Septuagint was accepted from the beginning of the Church, and it contained the removed books which you call the "apocrypha".

I wonder why they were removed...??? Hummm.....

i will google what the nicean counsel actually let in.

It was the councils of Hippo and Carthage who defined the Canon. 393 and 397-419 respectively.

 

[jasoncran]

i will look at the hippo one then but if its canon(the apochrypa) why is it called that still.

 

[dadof10]

found it under the guidance of st.augustine. they list no books outside the canon that we protestants have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage

The Septuagint, which contains the disputed books, was the version (for lack of a better word) primarily used by Jesus and the Apostles, the early Church. From a Protestant source, Calvinist, I think.

At Alexandria the Hellenistic Jews used the version, and gradually attached to it the greatest possible authority: from Alexandria it spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion, so that at the time of our Lord's birth it was the common form in which the Old Testament Scriptures had become diffused....

The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former....

And remember, the Hebrew "version" was in use at this time also, which did not contain the disputed books, but our Lord, the Apostles and their immediate successors used the Septuagint. I don't know if poor Jewish fisherman had a choice of "versions", but these facts at least assume that the disputed books were considered part of Scripture by Jesus and the Apostles, don't you think?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/brenton1.html

 

[jasoncran]

being a "hebrew" and my grandma is jew by faith the jews dont accept the apochprya at all.

odd if the old ones did, what happened since that time.
i have seen the jewish canon, and its the same as the ot, just some books in different order.

 

[dadof10]

i will look at the hippo one then but if its canon(the apochrypa) why is it called that still.

The collection of books is called "apocrypha" by Protestants, not Catholics. Ask them.

The reason might have something to do with the OP of this thread....Hummm...

 

[dadof10]

being a "hebrew" and my grandma is jew by faith the jews dont accept the apochprya at all.

odd if the old ones did, what happened since that time.
i have seen the jewish canon, and its the same as the ot, just some books in different order.

No, they don't. But the early CHRISTIANS did, and still do. Judaism held a council of sorts at Jamnia in about 100 AD and decided on the Hebrew canon. They rejected the Septuagint, but the Christian Church didn't. They accepted it and all the books within it.

I guess you have to ask yourself who has the authority to decide the Canon of Scripture in the Messianic era. Those who accepted the Messiah or those who rejected Him.

 

[jasoncran]

being a "hebrew" and my grandma is jew by faith the jews dont accept the apochprya at all.

odd if the old ones did, what happened since that time.
i have seen the jewish canon, and its the same as the ot, just some books in different order.

No, they don't. But the early CHRISTIANS did, and still do. Judaism held a council of sorts at Jamnia in about 100 AD and decided on the Hebrew canon. They rejected the Septuagint, but the Christian Church didn't. They accepted it and all the books within it.

I guess you have to ask yourself who has the authority to decide the Canon of Scripture in the Messianic era. Those who accepted the Messiah or those who rejected Him.

but we get the entire ot from them, and if they didnt accept those ot additions . they seem to contradict what the ot stories say.

apochrypra means untrue and unispired,

 

[francisdesales]

apochrypra means untrue and unispired,

No, it doesn't mean "untrue".

It means "hidden". That the book is "uninspired" is also a false assumption. It is "non-canonical", but that doesn't make it un-inspired by God, at least parts of it very well may have been inspired by God.

The term is applied haphazardly to a writing nowadays, but it used to be used more precisely long time ago. Now, it is incorrectly applied to any non-canonical book written.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

.

Mike

““So, the nonexistence of refuting scripture is evidence for it? I'm still stuck on the fact that there is absolutely no modeled pray to anyone but God by Jesus or anyone else in the entire NT. I don't see how this can be assumed to be acceptable or possible if we were never told to do it, or had it depicted by anyone, in the Bible.â€â€

Your argument is sound in relation to the Protestant Bible. But you are not taking into account that the Bible of the Catholics has a few more Old Testament books than yours. And in those added books there is a model for prayer for or to the dead. Doesn’t make the Catholic idea any more legitimate, but this must be considered. But I agree with you that an argument from nothing really leaves nothing to argue about. Let us wait and see how Francisdesales will respond to both of our comments.

Two points. First of all, Mike, I must refute the non-sequitar of "No one praying to anyone but God" in the NT. When have Catholics, when speaking precisely, say they pray TO saints to grant them graces? The correct terminology is to ask them to intercede for us, in other words, asking saints to pray FOR us. The saints do not have divine powers, are not gods, and thus, we ask them for prayers, just as we ask other Christians for prayers.

Secondly, "Added books"? Added by whom, James? Remember, the Septuagint was written before the Word became flesh. Those "added books" were already part of the Greek OT, the same Scriptures used by the Apostles when they referred to the OT the majority of the time. Ancient Christians recognized the inspiration of the OT "Deuterocanonicals" in their writings when they place them on par with Isaiah and Jeremiah when citing Scriptures to prove a point.

I am just coming off vacation, so if you want a response to something written last week, could you summarize it again? Thanks,

Regards

 

[JamesG]

.
Chestertonrules and dadof10

““All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€â€

Could you please comment on this statement made by Francisdesales.

Francisdesales

You did not answer my latest post on the 1 on 1. So I am presuming that you will not mind if I ask them to comment on this.

JamesG

 

[chestertonrules]

.
Chestertonrules and dadof10

““All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€â€

Could you please comment on this statement made by Francisdesales.

Francisdesales

You did not answer my latest post on the 1 on 1. So I am presuming that you will not mind if I ask them to comment on this.

JamesG

I'll comment.

God's revelation to man must be understood by men.

 

[dadof10]

.
Chestertonrules and dadof10

““All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€â€

Could you please comment on this statement made by Francisdesales.

Francisdesales

You did not answer my latest post on the 1 on 1. So I am presuming that you will not mind if I ask them to comment on this.

JamesG

I'm sure he'll be right with you. Believe me, he's not ducking you.

 

[JamesG]

.
Chestertonrules

So do you agree with the statement?


Dadof10

Didn't mean to imply that Francisdesales was ducking me. He did say he had just come back from vacation. To me that meant that he was busy at the moment. So I simply took the initiative to ask you guys as fellow Catholics about this statement.

So do you agree with the statement?

JamesG

 

[dadof10]

.
Chestertonrules

So do you agree with the statement?


Dadof10

Didn't mean to imply that Francisdesales was ducking me. He did say he had just come back from vacation. To me that meant that he was busy at the moment. So I simply took the initiative to ask you guys as fellow Catholics about this statement.

So do you agree with the statement?

JamesG

Yes. I know Joe is a devout, orthodox Catholic and only posts what the Church teaches. I only believe what's taught by the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals.

 

[JamesG]

.
Dadof10

Thank you for your response.

JamesG

 

[chestertonrules]

.
Chestertonrules

So do you agree with the statement?




JamesG

Yes.

The words on paper must be written, read and understood. This is human interpretation. The writing is performed by fallible humans intepreting the will of God.

 

[JamesG]

.
Chestertonrules

Thank you for your response.


Chestertonrules and Dadof10 and Francisdesales

I want to be specific here.

This is the statement:

““All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€â€

What I see in this statement is that the Biblical writers themselves wrote according to a human understanding of reality. And the quote says “all, includingâ€, which implies that the Biblical writings are included in the all human writings, so that all are simply human writings from a human perspective including the writings compiled in the Bible. In other words, the Biblical writers wrote from a human perspective. Now because this is so, then we who are humans trying to understand what the Biblical writers are saying must interpret these writings, just as we would interpret the writings of the Greek writers that we have copies of, such as Cicero or Homer. Am I understanding this correctly?

Francisdesales

I posted a response on the 1 on 1 thread around 4PM. As of now, it has not been posted by the monitors. We’ll see how that goes.

JamesG

 

[chestertonrules]

.


What I see in this statement is that the Biblical writers themselves wrote according to a human understanding of reality. And the quote says “all, includingâ€, which implies that the Biblical writings are included in the all human writings, so that all are simply human writings from a human perspective including the writings compiled in the Bible. In other words, the Biblical writers wrote from a human perspective. Now because this is so, then we who are humans trying to understand what the Biblical writers are saying must interpret these writings, just as we would interpret the writings of the Greek writers that we have copies of, such as Cicero or Homer. Am I understanding this correctly?


JamesG

Catholics believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. However, it was written by men. Catholics don't believe that all great writings of men are the inspired word of God.

Jesus is the ultimate Word of God. God spoke to us most directly by becoming man. While he was a man on earth, he didn't write a book. He started a Church to protect, preserve, and proclaim his message to mankind.

We must trust God, his Word, and his Church if we expect to learn the Truth.

 

[francisdesales]

.

Chestertonrules and Dadof10 and Francisdesales

I want to be specific here.

This is the statement:

““All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€â€

What I see in this statement is that the Biblical writers themselves wrote according to a human understanding of reality. And the quote says “all, includingâ€, which implies that the Biblical writings are included in the all human writings, so that all are simply human writings from a human perspective including the writings compiled in the Bible. In other words, the Biblical writers wrote from a human perspective. Now because this is so, then we who are humans trying to understand what the Biblical writers are saying must interpret these writings, just as we would interpret the writings of the Greek writers that we have copies of, such as Cicero or Homer. Am I understanding this correctly?

On the 1 on 1 debate forum, I posted several paragraphs of the Catholic Catechism, #106 -110 are the pertinent ones specifically to our conversation. This is nothing new. Aquinas stated that God "condesends" to our level of understanding when He inspired Scriptures. I am not about to say that God speaks so we cannot understand Him, that would be a pointless means of reveation. God inspires what He wanted written, but does it through the human author's choice of literary genres, personality, and current understandings of issues. But just because God inspired Jews of 2500 years ago to write Scripture doesn't mean that we of the 21st century must view the scientific world through THEIR eyes, such as the creation of the universe. The bible is not a science book and God wrote what He wanted written through the meager scientific knowledge of the Jews, utilizing a "story" that is not scientifically based to teach something about God and salvation.

Another example would be the understanding of evil and how God is involved in it. A reading of early OT writings seem to indicate that God invokes both good and evil upon those whom He chooses. Later writings seem to take a different tact, since human understanding of the subject changes - God ALLOWS evil to happen and does not actively bring about evil upon people. Clearly, human understanding of God's revelation changes with the further reflection and more writing of inspired literature.

Naturally, man interprets Scriptures - I am not sure how you could defend any other position. Even the canon itself is open to man's interpretation.

.

Francisdesales

I posted a response on the 1 on 1 thread around 4PM. As of now, it has not been posted by the monitors. We’ll see how that goes.

JamesG

I replied early this morning and will keep an eye on the "debate forum", if you desire to keep that open. I am off vacation now. I have not seen your "4 Pm" post yet.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

.
Chestertonrules

So do you agree with the statement?


Dadof10

Didn't mean to imply that Francisdesales was ducking me. He did say he had just come back from vacation. To me that meant that he was busy at the moment. So I simply took the initiative to ask you guys as fellow Catholics about this statement.

So do you agree with the statement?

JamesG

Yes. I know Joe is a devout, orthodox Catholic and only posts what the Church teaches. I only believe what's taught by the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals.

Thanks for the back up, and to chestertonrules, as well...

Regards