[fancyT]

If we ask our friends on earth to pray for us, why not ask our friends in heaven to do the same? Saints remind us of the belief that we are all called to holiness, to share life with God. Saints and angels inspire us to do just that. They are holy because they cooperated with the grace of God and they help us by encouraging us to respond as generously as they did.

Asking for a friend to pray for us and praying for one another is Biblical. However asking dead saints and angels to pray for us is not biblical. The word of God says Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father interceeding for us, it also says that the Holy spirit interceed for us with grownings. So if God Himself prays for us, why then should we ask dead people to pray for us? Jesus said HE is the only way to God. Not Mary, not the saints.

[Tj3]

Asking for a friend to pray for us and praying for one another is Biblical. However asking dead saints and angels to pray for us is not biblical. The word of God says Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father interceeding for us, it also says that the Holy spirit interceed for us with grownings. So if God Himself prays for us, why then should we ask dead people to pray for us? Jesus said HE is the only way to God. Not Mary, not the saints.

Yep.

If we can go directly to the throne of Almighty God with our prayers, in the name of Jesus, why would we need to, or even want to go through a dead saint?

[SkyGem]

Im sorry Sky Gem but i agree with Chuck 100%. It is a huge stretch for you to justify people who communicate with the dead by quoting this incident in the Bible. Jesus was merely calling Laz from the dead (as Tj3 said) after God the father answered His prayer. It was not for the purpose of communicating with the dead but it was a comand to bring him back to life. Like i have said before there is no where in the Bible that tells us that dead people can communicate with people on earth. But people can summon evil spirits who can pose as dead family members.

I just finished having a long discussion about this concerning other related areas and of course you can go back and read what was said about it, but what I am now actively looking for (which very much ties in with what you are saying) is continuing comments about The Vatican and EVP since the website brings out information that The Vatican now actively allows communication with the departed and even encourages studies in that area. With what you are saying, they, as the Head of the Roman Catholic Church should have no business allowing it, correct? And certainly your argument, if it is indeed that, should also be addressed to them. How do you feel about this? Is the Vatican, thus the Pope, wrong for allowing such communication or are they right? I might assume you think the Pope, as the head, is dead wrong in allowing it. Am I further correct to assume that?

[SkyGem]

If we ask our friends on earth to pray for us, why not ask our friends in heaven to do the same? Saints remind us of the belief that we are all called to holiness, to share life with God. Saints and angels inspire us to do just that. They are holy because they cooperated with the grace of God and they help us by encouraging us to respond as generously as they did.

Thank you for your comments, musynina. Since we should all know that the "dead" are not really dead but continue to live, as God has told us in LUKE 20:38 (KJV) and in other Scripture, e.g., JOHN 11:26 (KJV), I also feel we can communicate our message or request to them to pray to God for us as in the case of the saints and others. Quite naturally, we would not pray to the saints or anyone other than God but rather communicate with them. Perhaps that is why the Vatican allows communication with the saints. Remember, communication can also be one way and does not always have to be two-sided where we would actually physically hear the other side talking. As it relates to "communication" in general, we need look no further than radio announcers. For the most part, they speak only one way to people but it is still communication. True, they speak to living people but since God is not a God of the dead, quite obviously that is the reason many Catholics as well as many others "speak" or rather communicate with saints and departed loved ones and ask for their intercession.

To support this, please go to the following website (very short but knowledgeable reading). It is Catholic-related and I am not Catholic but nevertheless this site does provide excellent food for thought!

Answering Objections to the Intercession of the Saints

[Tj3]

[B]Thank you for your comments, musynina. Since we should all know that the "dead" are not really dead but continue to live, as God has told us in LUKE 20:38 (KJV) and in other Scripture, e.g. JOHN 11:26 (KJV), I also feel we can communicate our message or request to them to pray to God for us as in the case of the saints and others.

Let's look at Luke 20:38 in context:

Luke 20:27-40
27 Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 28 saying: "Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. 31 Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children, and died. 32 Last of all the woman died also. 33 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife." 34 And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 Now even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38 "For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him." 39 Then some of the scribes answered and said, "Teacher, You have spoken well." 40 But after that they dared not question Him anymore
NKJV

Note that this has to do with a discussion with the Sadduccees who denied the resurrection of the dead, and Jesus refuting them, showing that the dead were indeed resurrected.

Let's look at John 11:26 in context:

John 11:22-27
23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" 27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."
NKJV

This has absolutely nothing to do with the prohibition in scripture against communicating with those who are dead in the flesh.

Quite naturally, we would not pray to the saints or anyone other than God but rather communicate with them.

Interesting distinction - care to share with us where you would find such a distinction in scripture?

[Galveston1]

Now THAT's a huge stretch of the imagination!

What would an Atheist know about such things?

[NeedKarma]

What would an Atheist know about such things?

Was that meant to be insulting to me? C'mon, try to play nice with others. :)

[SkyGem]

Let's look at Luke 20:38 in context:

38 "For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him." 39 Then some of the scribes answered and said, "Teacher, You have spoken well." 40 But after that they dared not question Him anymore
NKJV

Note that this has to do with a discussion with the Sadduccees who denied the resurrection of the dead, and Jesus refuting them, showing that the dead were indeed resurrected.

Of course. And just imagine, if the dead are resurrected, then they are not really "dead" are they? There is a lesson here about the continuation of life! And God is INDEED the God of the LIVING, therefore, how could communication not be possible? That is the main point.

Let's look at John 11:26 in context:

John 11:22-27
23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" 27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."
NKJV

This has absolutely nothing to do with the prohibition in scripture against communicating with those who are dead in the flesh.

Perhaps to your understanding. But just try to feed that line to the Vatican! That is my continuous point and thank you for helping me to make it. Now, do you feel The Vatican is right in allowing communication with the departed?



Interesting distinction - care to share with us where you would find such a distinction in scripture?

Isn't it obvious? Or would you pray to any other but to God through Jesus Christ? Let me give you a little lesson here so you'll understand that you pray only to God through Jesus. Can we pray to the Holy Spirit?

[Tj3]

[B]Isn't it obvious? Or would you pray to any other but to God through Jesus Christ?

You did not answer my question. Where do you find any distinction in scripture that perhaps you to "communicate" with the saints who are dead in the flesh?

Let me give you a little lesson here so you'll understand that you pray only to God through Jesus.

Who was arguing that? But you argued that we can "communicate" with the dead. I am still waiting for you to justify that from scripture.

[SkyGem]

You did not answer my question. Where do you find any distinction in scripture that perhaps you to "communicate" with the saints who are dead in the flesh?



Who was arguing that? But you argued that we can "communicate" with the dead. I am still waiting for you to justify that from scripture.

Tell you what. In order to simplify matters, after you admit that The Vatican and of course, the Pope are very wrong in allowing communication with the "dead", we can continue dialogue. Fair enough?

[fancyT]

Tell you what. In order to simplify matters, after you admit that The Vatican and of course, the Pope are very wrong in allowing communication with the "dead", we can continue dialogue. Fair enough?

Yes The Pope is VERY wrong because he has no Biblical justification for allowing people to communicate with dead people. Just as an FYI the Pope is just a man like you and me. He is not God and he is not the head of "The Church" he is just the head of the Catholic Church.

[fancyT]

Let's look at Luke 20:38 in context:

Luke 20:27-40
27 Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 28 saying: "Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. 31 Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children, and died. 32 Last of all the woman died also. 33 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife." 34 And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 Now even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38 "For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him." 39 Then some of the scribes answered and said, "Teacher, You have spoken well." 40 But after that they dared not question Him anymore
NKJV

Note that this has to do with a discussion with the Sadduccees who denied the resurrection of the dead, and Jesus refuting them, showing that the dead were indeed resurrected.

Let's look at John 11:26 in context:

John 11:22-27
23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" 27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."
NKJV

This has absolutely nothing to do with the prohibition in scripture against communicating with those who are dead in the flesh.



Interesting distinction - care to share with us where you would find such a distinction in scripture?

I think it is very sad that people create an entire dictrine (faulse doctrines) based on one sentence taken completely out of context.

[fancyT]

What would an Atheist know about such things?

Galveston1,
The best way to deal with hecklers is to Just ignore, by replying you are just giving them the attention they are desparately seeking.

[NeedKarma]

I think it is very sad that people create an entire dictrine (faulse doctrines) based on one sentence taken completely out of context.

Same issue with false prophets i.e Joe Smith.

[Tj3]

Tell you what. In order to simplify matters, after you admit that The Vatican and of course, the Pope are very wrong in allowing communication with the "dead", we can continue dialogue. Fair enough?

Okay. The Pope and the Vatican are very wrong in allowing any communication with the dead. That has been my consistent position all along. It seems to be you supporting communication with the day, in concert with the Pope and the Vatican.

Now, how about you answer my question.

[SkyGem]

Okay. The Pope and the Vatican are very wrong in allowing any communication with the dead. That has been my consistent position all along. It seems to be you supporting communication with the day, in concert with the Pope and the Vatican.

Now, how about you answer my question.

In a previous response to my question of whether or not you believe that Jesus and God are One, you replied "You really need to slow down and go back and read my messages, and the link that I gave to my article on this topic. I have been quite specific on that point a number of times. Indeed - read, slowly and in detail the very paragraph that I wrote, and to which you refer."

Therefore, in answer to your question now, I likewise believe I have made my position quite clear in all of my previous posts and there is little else to be said. As to communication with the deceased, while you and others believe the Vatican and the Pope is wrong for allowing it, the fact that evidence of the continuation of life has surfaced, as shown in previous links, it may be that the Vatican has also taken note of this and has changed its stance on the matter. They may have even had other experiences as well? One has to also realize that back in Biblical days there were no electronic devices that could actually record voices or materializations as can happen today for "hard evidence"of such communications. Remember, the Old Testament Bible also prohibits wearing different fabric clothes together, eating shellfish, etc. There are other instances and prohibitions as well. While I cannot speak for The Vatican, in my personal opinion, it could be that they saw that some of these prohibitions have now been removed/lifted from the Old Testament in the New Testament, therefore, with new evidence of communication with the Afterlife, former restrictions could also be relaxed (after all, the Catholic Church claims to be able to do many things with their authority). I realize we could go on and on about this matter but this topic has now been exhausted as I said previously, and it's time to move on to other areas. You have now made your position and I have made mine. You may continue to post as you wish, but for any further replies on this that you may be seeking from me, please go back and re-read what I have posted previously.

We are now going back to the original posting of The Vatican and EVP. Anyone else who believes The Vatican and the Pope are wrong for allowing communication with the departed may continue to post as they wish. Likewise, those who support the Vatican's decision in this may likewise make their feelings known. Thank you.

[fancyT]

Skygem, the bottom line is that the Bible does not indorse speaking to dead people or asking dead people to pray for you. So if you feel comfortable with creating a doctrine of your own that is not biblical, then that is on you. God is the same yestereday today and forever. The word of God is timeless, it doesn't mean people should change it according to the times.

[NeedKarma]

The word of God is timeless, it doesnt mean people should change it according to the times.

So how does the bible help you understand cars or computers or Pepsi or fast food or scotch tape or the internet or railroads.. None of those existed when the bible was written; I'm assuming some interesting "interpretation" is required.

[Tj3]

[B]In a previous response to my question of whether you believe that Jesus and God are One, you replied "You really need to slow down and go back and read my messages, and the link that I gave to my article on this topic. I have been quite specific on that point a number of times. Indeed - read, slowly and in detail the very paragraph that I wrote, and to which you refer."

You appeared to suggest earlier that Jesus and God the father were not distinct persons in the trinity, which is a teaching of the modalists, or "Oneness pentecostals", and I asked you to address that. You didn't.

Therefore, in answer to your question now, I likewise believe I have made my position quite clear in all of my previous posts and there is little else to be said. As to communication with the deceased, while you and others believe the Vatican and the Pope is wrong for allowing it, the fact that evidence of the continuation of life has surfaced, as shown in previous links, it may be that the Vatican has also taken note of this and has changed its stance on the matter. They may have even had other experiences as well? One has to also realize that back in Biblical days there were no electronic devices that could actually record voices or materializations as can happen today for "hard evidence"of such communications. Remember, the Old Testament Bible also prohibits wearing different fabric clothes together, eating shellfish, etc. There are other instances and prohibitions as well. While I cannot speak for The Vatican, in my opinion, it could be that they saw that some of these prohibitions have now been removed/lifted from the Old Testament in the New Testament, therefore, with new evidence of communication with the Afterlife, former restrictions could also be relaxed (after all, the Catholic Church claims to be able to do many things with their authority). I realize we could go on and on about this matter but this topic has now been exhausted as I said previously, and it's time to move on to other areas. You have now made your position and I have made mine. You may continue to post as you wish, but for any further replies on this that you may be seeking from me, please go back and re-read what I have posted previously.

I have read all you posts. I have asked you several times to validate from scripture your claim that it is okay to communicate with the dead but not pray to them. You haven't.

[Tj3]

So how does the bible help you understand cars or computers or Pepsi or fast food or scotch tape or the internet or railroads...? None of those existed when the bible was written; I'm assuming some interesting "interpretation" is required.

These are not doctrinal issues, are they?