praying to virgin mary and the saints

[Gabriel_of_12]

The issue isn’t whether anyone quoted from the LXX or even if Jesus or the apostles quoted the dc’s. The issue is whether Jesus or the apostles quoted the dc’s as either inspired or as an authority and the answer to that question is a resounding no. At best you may be able to pull out a quote or two or an allusion from the dc’s regarding a historical matter but that’s about it.

If you feel compelled to provide a list feel free to provide your best quote which establishes the NT authors believed the dc’s to be canonical.

If the Jews of the first century accepted the dc’s as inspired it should be a simple matter to show evidence of this. I am only aware of evidence showing that the Hebrew canon of the 1st century lacked the dc’s.

Gabriel of 12;

Then your request is not trusting and believing in Jesus taught from the Septagint and D.C books. You are requesting historical data if there was an acceptance of the D.C books from Jewish sources or historical evidence? The answer is take a look at the “Septuagint” which includes the d.c books prior to the first century. Your questioned posed a double standard to me, you request proof for a Jew to state from the first century that the d.c books were accepted as inspired, although Jesus taught from these? yet you are only aware that the Hebrew canon lacked the D.C’s? no proof that anyone Jew is quoted as rejecting them prior to 70. a.d.? You see how your question carries no weight but bias prejudiced view to history and new discoveries that reveal the D.C books in the Hebrew content, proving that first century Jews read them wrote them and taught from them, yet we dont here of no one rejecting them verbally as you unreasonably ask.

I think this topic robbed the thread;

 

[elvisman]

The thing I see here at CAF is that Catholics are unaware of their church’s history and many times act as if Luther was the first person ever to be anti-semitic, have various doubts about NT books, reject the deuterocanonicals, add the word alone to Romans, etc.

Then, when confronted with evidence to the contrary many seem to simply skim over it and repeat the same arguements later in the thread or again in a new thread…

Anyway, one of the best sites I have found about Luther is www.beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com the seem to address Luther, warts and all.

Semper - while I understand your frustration - the very same can be said of the many non-Catholics (and anti-Catholics) who come to this forum. I have asked several questions ad nauseam on this and other threads and have received no answer - just dancing around the issue. A lot of "hit-and-run-posts".

I must say, though, you and JonNC (and a number of others) have had the charity and candor to speak your point without making immature, ad hominem assaults.

 

[JonNC]

**Hmmm . . . guess I should **have pasted the rolling eyesrolleyes, as I was making a poor attempt at humor . . .

Sorry. Sometimes it is the audience, not the humorist.
Jon

 

[elvisman]

Show me where Jesus or the disciples quoted the apocrypha. You provide a lot of scripture but nowhere in the NT do you see them quoted by Christ himself. How many times do i need to ask you for the answer. I am tired of asking you but i do not see the quotes in the NT. The NT explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and Law Rom 3:2. The Jews should be considered the custodians of the limists of their own canon. And they have always rejected the apocrypha. The Christian church has rejected the apocrypha as part of the canon to this day. Why? Because it lacks the primary determining factor of canonicity: propheticity, that is , the apocryphal books lack evidence that they were written by accredited prophets of God. I could go on and on but this is getting old. Humble yourself youngster lol:thumbsup:

I have provided you with Scriptural quotes from the Gospels and the Epistles. It’s not my problem if you refuse to read them. Ummm . . . maybe you should go back and read all of the posts on this thread to catch up on the discussion.

---

I grow weary of uninformed anti-Catholics who refuse to read the posts and make silly, immature, unsubstantiated accusations like yours.

---

Just a lot of hot air and no substance . . .

 

[JonNC]

Yes, but it is inevitable. The topic is difficult to discuss because we come to it with differeing views of the d-c’s, which Catholics look to as evidence for the practice.
Sorry to the OP.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes, but it is inevitable. The topic is difficult to discuss because we come to it with differeing views of the d-c’s, which Catholics look to as evidence for the practice.
Sorry to the OP.

Jon

From what I gather here on the forum regarding the D.C books is that the Catholic church and the Jewish community have a common understanding of the removal and acceptance of the D.C books supported by history and archeology. What puzzles me why non catholics use the D.C books as an argument to discredit the Authority of the Catholic church or for what ever reason it has anti-catholic tones when it loses its reason to understand and learn from one another. In any case the Jewish and Catholic community have the advantage from history, because these two communities were there in history to hand down the faith and teachings since the first century.

 

[SemperReformada]

Semper - while I understand your frustration - the very same can be said of the many non-Catholics (and anti-Catholics) who come to this forum. I have asked several questions ad nauseam on this and other threads and have received no answer - just dancing around the issue. A lot of "hit-and-run-posts".

I must say, though, you and JonNC (and a number of others) have had the charity and candor to speak your point without making immature, ad hominem assaults.

Elvis,

I agree totally w/ you about many non-Catholics behaviour on this forum. Many tend to subscribe to the “Dan Brown or Jack Chick” school of…well, I don’t know what to call it.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[SemperReformada]

From what I gather here on the forum regarding the D.C books is that the Catholic church and the Jewish community have a common understanding of the removal and acceptance of the D.C books supported by history and archeology. What puzzles me why non catholics use the D.C books as an argument to discredit the Authority of the Catholic church or for what ever reason it has anti-catholic tones when it loses its reason to understand and learn from one another. In any case the Jewish and Catholic community have the advantage from history, because these two communities were there in history to hand down the faith and teachings since the first century.

I don’t agree w/ the conclusions you draw from this but I don’t use the dc’s to discredit the RCC authority. At the end of the day, I think everyone of us acknowledges that at least for the RCC, the issue of OT canon was settled at Trent. Some may argue this happened earlier but there can be no doubt that Trent was the final say for the RCC.

The only reason I will take part in these discussions is that there are many Catholics who have read a few tracts from various popular Catholic apologists and assume everything in church history is a complete slam dunk for the RCC. It just isn’t that clean.

For example in a previous post, either on this thread or on another I posted from Jedin how there was debate as to the canonocity of the dc’s at Trent. While this fact doesn’t take away from the RCC’s authority it certainly does illustrate the fact that not everyone achknowledged the canon set at either Carthage or Hippo.

Additionaly at Trent there was discussion as to what had precedence…scripture or tradition. Many things/subjects/issues that Catholics ridicule Protestants for are a part of their history too.

I realize that I am not going to change your mind about the dc’s but only hope to show you that the history of them is rather complicated and it’s not as if Luther was the only person between Carthage and Trent to doubt their inspiration.

So far, this discussion has been pretty good. Much better than what often transpires here at CAF so we should continue.

To be fair, many non-Catholics use aguments that are simply terrible too. When I listen to debates between the better Catholic apologists and the better Protestant apologists I tend to learn a lot from both sides because they are knowledgeable enough for the most part to know what is and what isn’t a good argument.

I guess I have rambled enough…on w/ the discussion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t agree w/ the conclusions you draw from this but I don’t use the dc’s to discredit the RCC authority. At the end of the day, I think everyone of us acknowledges that at least for the RCC, the issue of OT canon was settled at Trent. Some may argue this happened earlier but there can be no doubt that Trent was the final say for the RCC.

Gabriel of 12;

The Old Testament Canon of scripture was not settled at Trent. This is a misunderstanding of the councils thinking and interpretation of what took place. I have broken down this document translation with another protestant on these forums. It does not translate that Trent settled the Old Testament Canon. In Short, Trent closed the discussion of the already “Canonized Old Testament” books of the bible specifically the Deutero-"Canonical’ books once and for all. The council of Trent did not canonize any bible. Trent closed the scholary Bishopheric debates and discussions to the “Existing” Old Testament Canon once and for all, or as Trent put it accept these books in the canon or “be anathema” excommunicated.

You have been misinformed of this documents translation of thought, action and process of what took place at Trent regarding the D.C books. Trent never canonized the already canonized bible. I have read them with a Protestants view and came away with a misinterpretation of the language. Reading the document with the thinking and interpretation from Trent reveals the Truth that Trent closed the canon from future debates among Catholics and anyone who rejects these books excommunicate themselves from the body of Jesus Christ. One can accurately interpret the language of Trent when one considers the history for Trent and the canon of the bible from antiquity. If you lack this historical information from the thinking of Trent and its due process, it is guaranteed you will miss the translation.

The fact remains that the Old Testament and New Testament have not changed since they were first canonized by the Catholic Church from the fourth century. The Catholic Saints who debated the D.C books had every liberty to do so throughout the centuries. But these Catholic heavyweights did not nor could not change the Canon of Scripture from antiquity, not even Trent did such a thing or attempt to do it. Trent only allowed to hear the arguments against these already canonized books once and for all and settled the debates and discussions until Jesus returns.

I dont argue about your opinions and faith, I hope to clarify misconceptions and misunderstandings of my Catholic faith when I see or hear them. I too have enjoyed these discussions with you.

Peace be with you

 

[rinnie]

SemperReformada;5414749:

I don’t agree w/ the conclusions you draw from this but I don’t use the dc’s to discredit the RCC authority. At the end of the day, I think everyone of us acknowledges that at least for the RCC, the issue of OT canon was settled at Trent. Some may argue this happened earlier but there can be no doubt that Trent was the final say for the RCC.

Gabriel of 12;

The Old Testament Canon of scripture was not settled at Trent. This is a misunderstanding of the councils thinking and interpretation of what took place. I have broken down this document translation with another protestant on these forums. It does not translate that Trent settled the Old Testament Canon. In Short, Trent closed the discussion of the already “Canonized Old Testament” books of the bible specifically the Deutero-"Canonical’ books once and for all. The council of Trent did not canonize any bible. Trent closed the scholary Bishopheric debates and discussions to the “Existing” Old Testament Canon once and for all, or as Trent put it accept these books in the canon or “be anathema” excommunicated.

You have been misinformed of this documents translation of thought, action and process of what took place at Trent regarding the D.C books. Trent never canonized the already canonized bible. I have read them with a Protestants view and came away with a misinterpretation of the language. Reading the document with the thinking and interpretation from Trent reveals the Truth that Trent closed the canon from future debates among Catholics and anyone who rejects these books excommunicate themselves from the body of Jesus Christ. One can accurately interpret the language of Trent when one considers the history for Trent and the canon of the bible from antiquity. If you lack this historical information from the thinking of Trent and its due process, it is guaranteed you will miss the translation.

The fact remains that the Old Testament and New Testament have not changed since they were first canonized by the Catholic Church from the fourth century. The Catholic Saints who debated the D.C books had every liberty to do so throughout the centuries. But these Catholic heavyweights did not nor could not change the Canon of Scripture from antiquity, not even Trent did such a thing or attempt to do it. Trent only allowed to hear the arguments against these already canonized books once and for all and settled the debates and discussions until Jesus returns.

I dont argue about your opinions and faith, I hope to clarify misconceptions and misunderstandings of my Catholic faith when I see or hear them. I too have enjoyed these discussions with you.

Peace be with you

Excellent response. It is like with the Blessed Mother the Church never had to comment. And like OT and NT because it was never called into question before. What alot of Protestants do not understand is Tradition. Alot of tradition was never written only followed because it was what it was, always believed and never questioned. But when we got into the bible without tradition thats when all hell broke loose. Because alot to Tradition is just as important and true as the written word just not written down in scripture. The bible itself will tell you this. But I think alot of Protestatns are learning more today of Tradition, and are understanding without it you can never understand the bible without it. That is why without Tradition scripture can contradict scripture but with Tradition it completes it. But I feel we have gone a long way, and now more and more people are comming back to the Church. When they really study they are learning there reallly is no other way. BUt it takes time and patience and faith but it does happen.

 

[JonNC]

Semper - while I understand your frustration - the very same can be said of the many non-Catholics (and anti-Catholics) who come to this forum. I have asked several questions ad nauseam on this and other threads and have received no answer - just dancing around the issue. A lot of "hit-and-run-posts".

I must say, though, you and JonNC (and a number of others) have had the charity and candor to speak your point without making immature, ad hominem assaults.

Thank you. I understand your frustration, as well.

Jon

 

[freedomwriter]

I have provided you with Scriptural quotes from the Gospels and the Epistles. It’s not my problem if you refuse to read them. Ummm . . . maybe you should go back and read all of the posts on this thread to catch up on the discussion.

---

**I grow weary **of uninformed anti-Catholics who refuse to read the posts and make silly, immature, unsubstantiated accusations like yours.

---

Just a lot of hot air and no substance . . .

You are tired of being debunked. Time to grow up and admit when you are wrong. At least check others resources before commenting. If I am wrong i will admit it. I have found this site to be very informative. There are things in here that i missed when i was catholic. For the most part i have found many who reply with class. Read some of them you might learn something.

 

[ibetrippin07]

You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments

How can you read this and still pray to a saint/make statutes of Mary and pray to her? was it not anymore clear in the OT whenever the jews made themselves an idol or prayed to something other than God, they were punished severely. Technically speaking, if Christ rose and is in Heaven, mary died and is in heaven and the apostles died and went to heaven then why ignore this “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above” ???
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
1 Tim 2:5. IF you dont belive this scripture is relevant to the idea of praying to anything else for intercession besides Jesus then what was it doing there?

 

[JonNC]

=ibetrippin07;5417245]You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments

As a non-catholic, I see no evidence that Catholics or Orthodox violate the 1st commandment. I think it is the second council of Nicea that deals with iconoclasm.

How can you read this and still pray to a saint/make statutes of Mary and pray to her?

Please explain your definition of prayer.

was it not anymore clear in the OT whenever the jews made themselves an idol or prayed to something other than God, they were punished severely. Technically speaking, if Christ rose and is in Heaven, mary died and is in heaven and the apostles died and went to heaven then why ignore this “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above” ???

Does the Lincoln Memorial violate this?

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
1 Tim 2:5. IF you dont belive this scripture is relevant to the idea of praying to anything else for intercession besides Jesus then what was it doing there?

So, you have never asked someone to pray a prayer for someone else to get well?

The argument you make here, and more, the tone in which you make it, is more convincing that Catholics are right on this issue than their’s are.

Jon

 

[ibetrippin07]

As a non-catholic, I see no evidence that Catholics or Orthodox violate the 1st commandment. I think it is the second council of Nicea that deals with iconoclasm.

I look to the bible for my answers…

Please explain your definition of prayer.

a form of worship and asking of something divine. the only time you would use prayer in a sentence is if you were referring to something religious or to a Godly figure.

Does the Lincoln Memorial violate this?
The Lincoln memorial is not a religious figure and is def not a worshiped image…

So, you have never asked someone to pray a prayer for someone else to get well?
I have however once you are dead and in heaven what do you think you will be doing? chillin and doing whatever you want or worshiping God for eternity? haven’t you ever read parts of the bible where creatures are said to be constantly praying and giving worship and singing songs to God? You think we will be doing otherwise?

The argument you make here, and more, the tone in which you make it, is more convincing that Catholics are right on this issue than their’s are.
Dont hate, just because thats how i type…

Jon

 

[elvisman]

You are tired of being debunked. Time to grow up and admit when you are wrong. At least check others resources before commenting. If I am wrong i will admit it. I have found this site to be very informative. There are things in here that i missed when i was catholic. For the most part i have found many who reply with class. Read some of them you might learn something.

You haven’t debunked a thing. Heated opinions and anti-Catholic sites offer nothing new and are boring, quite frankly.
You could learn a thing or two from your fellow Protestant posters JonNC and SemperReformada, who have done their homework and offer intelligent viewpoints. Even though I may disagree with some of what they say - they are to be commended for their candor and charity.

You’re an extremely immature poster who revels in ad hominem attacks but doesn’t really know the Scriptures or how to defend his faith.

Like the old saying goes, "A little information is dangerous."
In your case - it’s very little information . . .

 

[JonNC]

Posted by ibetrippin07:
a form of worship and asking of something divine. the only time you would use prayer in a sentence is if you were referring to something religious or to a Godly figure.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/pray

1. to make earnest petition to (a person).
2. to make petition or entreaty for; crave: She prayed his forgiveness.

1. to make entreaty or supplication, as to a person or for a thing.

In other words, prayer can also be directed to persons, as it also means to ask. That is the form of prayer one is talking about here - a request, the same kind of prayer/request as when you ask someone to pray for a loved-one.

The Lincoln memorial is not a religious figure and is def not a worshiped image…

Exactly, and neither is a statue of the Virgin Mary worshipped.

I have however once you are dead and in heaven what do you think you will be doing? chillin and doing whatever you want or worshiping God for eternity? haven’t you ever read parts of the bible where creatures are said to be constantly praying and giving worship and singing songs to God? You think we will be doing otherwise?

What will we be praying about? Do you think we will be praying for the well-being of those who are on earth?

Dont hate, just because thats how i type…

Hate? How did I show hate to anyone? How you type is irrelevent. What you typed was my concern. Understand what they do with statues (they don’t worship them). Understand what they mean by prayer to saints (it isn’t prayer like we all do to God). Before you criticize.
This has been a reasonably charitable thread, and I would prefer it stays that way.
Jon

 

[ibetrippin07]

Please explain to me where else i would use “prayer” outside of worship… THEN we could argue if there’s a difference between prayer and adoration…

 

[ibetrippin07]

I know Catholics quite well and in fact sometimes attend a class headed by Gary Michuta. Dont come at me like that…
2nd thats cool if the statute is just there for decoration or for an honoring but lets be real, i have great respect for MLK but i dont have statutes of him in my house and to be frank i dont have statutes of anything else at my house especially graven images of things that are holy…

 

[ibetrippin07]

I still insist that one show me where prayer would be used outside of a worshiping context.
I dont know if you mean something like yea i was at Jims the other day and we were “praying” as in talking back and forth to each other…