Praying for the dead

[Canto]

My point exactly!! Thank You

13 And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die.

14 Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.

15 ¶ And Nathan returned to his house. The Lord also struck the child which the wife of Urias had borne to David, and his life was despaired of.

16 And David besought the Lord for the child: and David kept a fast, and going in by himself lay upon the ground.

His child might die because of the consequences of his sin. So he fasts and beseeches the Lord, but his child still ends up dying.

Once he realises that his child is dead - the Lord has taken him - he realises he won’t get him back because of the consequences of his sin, and as he had already fasted in an attempt to keep his son.

His son is now with the Lord. And so he ends his fast.

Prayer can bring people back from the dead such as the dead woman Peter prayed for in acts, but becuase of the consequences of his sin, his son died. He knew before hand that he might die and so when the prayer was not answered he did not continue to pray to get him back.

If his child had died say natually, then he might have prayed to get his son back and maybe the prayer would have been heard.

Had his son died (in a way not due to the consequences of his sin) and he was older and had some sins, then maybe David would have prayed for him to find rest.

 

[Canto]

I don’t see why you are such a Douay Rheims snob. It’s basically just a copy of the Latin Vulgate that Jerome translated. It has inaccuacies in it. Newer translations went back to the original Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic documents.

Where are the inaccuracies in the Douay?

The ESV uses the RSV as its base
The KJV uses the Bishop’s Bible as it’s base
The Douay Rheims 1582 uses that Latin as its base

The Latin translates the original languages.
The Latin for the DR was diligently compared and corrected to the original languages. Other diverse languages, I’m guessing ancient translations such as the Syriac etc, were also consulted

No Bible is pefect especially some newer translations.

When the Bishops sent the NAB to the Vatican for lectionary aproval it was sent back with countless amendments.

 

[tobinatorstark]

tobinatorstark;4793820:

since you choose to you the NAB, you over looked the intro

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/tobit/intro.htm

this does mention prayer for the dead. If you read closely/QUOTE]

Where?

I don’t see why you are such a Douay Rheims snob. It’s basically just a copy of the Latin Vulgate that Jerome translated. It has inaccuacies in it. Newer translations went back to the original Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic documents.

FYI It is not just Jerome it is St. Jerome. Without his proper title it make it sound like you are degrading him of his work. I am still waiting on proof of many errors in both the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate as well as why the NIV is a better translation and why the book of Tobias 12:12-15 isn’t about praying for the dead and praying for the intercession of saints. All others in this thread proved their points. Can you???

 

[tobinatorstark]

tobinatorstark;4793820:

since you choose to you the NAB, you over looked the intro

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/tobit/intro.htm

this does mention prayer for the dead. If you read closely/QUOTE]

Where?

I don’t see why you are such a Douay Rheims snob. It’s basically just a copy of the Latin Vulgate that Jerome translated. It has inaccuacies in it. Newer translations went back to the original Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic documents.

St. Jerome used the Aramaic manuscripts to translate the book of Tobias. He also used Greek, Hebrew Chaldean and Latin Manuscripts that each book was written in. Different texts were used in translating the newer Bible versions because the texts that St. Jerome used have deteriated and no longer exist. Yet these texts that are using to translate the new Bible versions cannot be proven that they are older than the ones that St. Jerome used because the ones that he used no longer exist.

 

[TheHem]

Praying to the dead is strictly forbidden in the Bible. Deuteronomy 18:11 tells us that anyone who “consults with the dead” is “detestable to the Lord.” The story of Saul consulting a medium to bring up the spirit of the dead Samuel resulted in his death “because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance” (1 Samuel 28:1-25; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14). Clearly God has declared that such things are not to be done.

My thought to this is…
What was the motivation behind the action?
Sauls actions weren’t pure. He had flipped out by this point.
Not only that he was seeking someone who wasn’t living for God.
What’s amazing about this is that the prophet of God still appears to him. hmmmmmm???
So I would think your response isn’t valid for asking for intercesion on behalf of those that have preceded us.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**

Jesus never gave us a defined OT or NT canon

Oh yes - Jesus did.
In the Old Testament in Jer 31:31 we are where told:
The time is coming, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Jesus later said according to this in Luke 22:20
This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
(as also St. Paul affirmed in 1 Cor 11:25 and in Hebr 8,13 + 12:24)

**

 

[Canto]

**

Oh yes - Jesus did.
In the Old Testament in Jer 31:31 we are where told:
The time is coming, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Jesus later said according to this in Luke 22:20
This cup is the new covenant** in my blood, which is poured out for you.
(as also St. Paul affirmed in 1 Cor 11:25 and in Hebr 8,13 + 12:24)

Should have been more specific sorry.

In the Bible Jesus never gives us a list of what the canon should be.

He did give the Church authority to come up with the canon, but the actual list, as you know, is not found in the Bible.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Jesus told us very often what to do and what not to do, and what’s right and what wrong, and how to worship, how to pray and why and the lot.

I can’t see what good a “list” should do.

Whoever likes, might list it up what Jesus said. No problem.
The problem might occur, that - as every word of Jesus covers a book - the list might be ever so long. But it won’t be a list of “rule of conduct”, but a list of God’s love.

Still - as I told my sons: We understand very well, if we open our heart to the word of God.

**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus told us very often what to do and what not to do, and what’s right and what wrong, and how to worship, how to pray and why and the lot.

I can’t see what good a “list” should do.

Whoever likes, might list it up what Jesus said. No problem.
The problem might occur, that - as every word of Jesus covers a book - the list might be ever so long. But it won’t be a list of “rule of conduct”, but a list of God’s love.

Still - as I told my sons: We understand very well, if we open our heart to the word of God.

Bruno-

I think you are misunderstanding what is being said.

It is a plain fact that the New Testament was not written until after His ascension; consequently, Jesus did not provide any guidance with regard to which books should make up the New Testament.

The New Testament canon was established by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Bruno-

I think you are misunderstanding what is being said.

Oh - I kept misunderstanding things ever since I was born
I even asked before I appeared; if that’s really the exit

It is a plain fact that the New Testament was not written until after His ascension; consequently, Jesus did not provide any guidance with regard to which books should make up the New Testament.

oh, we shouldn’t really mention that, for this point is the very one antagonist of Christianity use to make Christian believe unbelievable or see here for the right word:
dict.cc/?s=unglaubw%C3%BCrdig

Here is the explanation you posted yourself:

The New Testament canon was established by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

“under the guidance of the Holy Spirit”

here we are.
In fact the gospel was written when direct witnesses ob Jesus, people who saw and heard Jesus, where alive to write it all down. It was only Luke who most likely did not see or hear Jesus himself. But Luke’s strong words, impress all the more.

We all know, that God Himself, the Holy Spirit who not only guides, but also accompanies His (the Holy Trinity’s) Church.
We really might be sure, that our Church doesn’t change a comma on the gospel, for we know Saint Paul’s warning in 1Tim 6,3 - 2Kor 11,4 - 1Kor 16,22 - Gal 1,8:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**

Bruno-

I think you are misunderstanding what is being said.

Oh - I kept misunderstanding things ever since I was born
I even asked before I appeared; if that’s really the exit

It is a plain fact that the New Testament was not written until after His ascension; consequently, Jesus did not provide any guidance with regard to which books should make up the New Testament.

oh, we shouldn’t really mention that, for this point is the very one antagonists of Christianity use to make Christian believe unbelievable or see here for the right word:
dict.cc/?s=unglaubw%C3%BCrdig

Here is the explanation you posted yourself:

The New Testament canon was established by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

“under the guidance of the Holy Spirit”

here we are.
In fact the gospel was written when direct witnesses of Jesus, people who saw and heard Jesus, where alive to write it all down. It was of the 4 Evangelists only Luke who most likely did not see or hear Jesus himself. But Luke’s strong words, impress all the more.

We all know, that God Himself, the Holy Spirit who not only guides, but also accompanies His (the Holy Trinity’s) Church, would not allow a wrong word in HIS gospel.
We really might be sure, that our Church doesn’t change a comma on the gospel, for we know Saint Paul’s warning in 1Tim 6,3 - 2Kor 11,4 - 1Kor 16,22 - Gal 1,8:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

**

 

[Matariel]

oh, we shouldn’t really mention that, for this point is the very one antagonists of Christianity use to make Christian believe unbelievable or see here for the right word:

But you see, for the Catholic, that is not a problem. Only for the various Protestant sects is it a problem, as the Catholic Synods of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo determined the Biblical Canon we have today. Es ist nicht unglaubwürdig.

So it’s not a problem for the God’s Catholic Church, only for the various Protestant sects which broke away from the Church.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

But you see, for the Catholic, that is not a problem. Only for the various Protestant sects is it a problem, as the Catholic Synods of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo determined the Biblical Canon we have today. Es ist nicht unglaubwürdig.

So it’s not a problem for the God’s Catholic Church, only for the various Protestant sects which broke away from the Church.

**

Hi Matariel, Well said!

Hi Bruno,

History of NT

51-125 The New Testament books are written.

140 Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.

200 The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

367 The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367
A.D…

382 Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.

393 the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

397 The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …

AD787 The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.

AD 1238 The system of chapters was introduced by Cardinal Hugo de S. Caro,

1442 AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.

1536 In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

1546 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

1551 the verse notations were added by Robertus Stephanus, after the advent of printing. **

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**

Es ist nicht unglaubwürdig.
So it’s not a problem for the God’s Catholic Church, only for the various Protestant sects which broke away from the Church.

That’s exactly what I said. And that’s the reason, why I don’t really mention that in a Cath. forum which of course is observed by antagonists, atheists and those who relativise everything the bible says. The pope recently warned strongly of relativism.
Those love to turn our own words against us and against Church and Christianity.

Of course that’s for Catholics not a problem. The problem occurs when your word is turned against you, by people who don’t mind to “a” God of whom they believe, He doesn’t exist.
They love to take fun of the bible and the Church, and they love to make both unglaubwürdig (beyond any belief).

That’s my problem when talking to them. The problem, of finding the right word.
But then - let’s be comforted by the fact, that many even turned the words of Jesus Himself against him, and Jesus advised us then in Mt 10,14 and others:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave them… I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves

But let’s get back to the thread: Should we pray for the dead?

Now this is very clearly answered in 2 Maccabeans 12:44 (I did not find that in my engl. version Bible, so I have to translate myself):
Would they not have believed in resurrection of the deceased; their prayers for them would not have made any sense!

Can anybody tell me what’s 2 Makkabäer 12:44 in your bible, please?

**

 

[Canto]

Can anybody tell me what’s 2 Makkabäer 12:44 in your bible, please?

44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,

45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Thank’s a lot Great!
But what’s in English:
2 Makkabäer ?
**

 

[po18guy]

Thank’s a lot Great!
But what’s in English:
2 Makkabäer ?

2 Maccabees, one of the scriptural foundations for purgatory.

 

[Matariel]

Those love to turn our own words against us and against Church and Christianity.

Entschuldigen. I misunderstood you.

Of course that’s for Catholics not a problem. The problem occurs when your word is turned against you, by people who don’t mind to “a” God of whom they believe, He doesn’t exist.
They love to take fun of the bible and the Church, and they love to make both unglaubwürdig (beyond any belief).

Very true, I totally agree.

Can anybody tell me what’s 2 Makkabäer 12:44 in your bible, please?

“II Maccabees 12:44” auf Englisch.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Thanks
but sorry
it told me
‘2 Maccabees 12:44’ not found for version "New International Version"

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**PROBLEM SOLVED

A very dear friend of ours who is priest in Austria and teacher for students of theology, gave me the hint:

The online bible I mentioned before is not too good.
This one is better:

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm
and here we find the vers I was talking about

usccb.org/nab/bible/2maccabees/2maccabees12.htm

oh - I’d be lost without this priest Dr. Spindelböck, whom I asked so often so much
spindelboeck.net/

**