Dave,
Does it ever occur to you that Douglas and the rest of us don't get it because it is a poor argument?
Do you know that I started chuckling to myself just the other night when I was reminded of your Peter raising Tabitha example. Really, I am not trying to be mean, but that is a terrible argument.
But back to this example - I still haven't a clue how you believe that Saul talking to Samuel (assuming that is Samuel) supports in any shape or form, allowable communication between the dead (not alive on earth) and the living (alive on earth).
Here is what you are trying to prove: "God (at least at times) wants contact to occur between departed saints and people on earth."
Allowing Samuel (assuming it was Samuel) to appear to Saul does not negate the command by God to not contact the dead. The passage from 1 Chronicles shows that God did not approve of what Saul did. The fact that the interaction occurred (for whatever reason that God allowed it) does not mean that God desired it. If he had desired it, he would not have killed Saul over it.
"But back to this example - I still haven't a clue how you believe that Saul talking to Samuel (assuming that is Samuel) supports in any shape or form, allowable communication between the dead (not alive on earth) and the living (alive on earth)."
Simply put, if man is there really is a ban on communication between those who are phyisically dead and alive, then it denies that god approved of samuel going down to rebuke saul for his occultic practice (which ironically is a communication between the dead and the living) ergo God violated his own law and caused both samuel and Saul to sin making God the hypocrite in this passage.
The evidence says it was Samuel (1 Sam 28:16-19), and there is no indication it was a demon or evil spirit.
The sin against talking to the dead in in regards to circumventing God in order to get an answer. The chapter is clear Saul had three main proper ways to get an answer from God, in verse 6 it says, "dreams or Urim or prophets". In v15 it says Saul was unhappy about not getting an answer so he went to the witch. This is not the same as Intercession of the Saints.
In my opinion this Samuel stuff is best used against those who dont believe we have immortal souls, like the JWs and SDAs ("soul sleep") claim.
The verses to use for Intercession of the Saints are places like Rev 5:8 and 8:4. The Transfiguration is another support that the saints are alive, and talk with God.
Uhm, Dave, your last words to me were to get a life...uhm.....uhm........ 
The sin against talking to the dead in in regards to circumventing God in order to get an answer.
But praying to dead saints is somehow different?
The Transfiguration is another support that the saints are alive, and talk with God.
Yes, but not that they can hear the prayers of thousands to millions of people on earth from heaven.
No one reading the Bible from cover to cover would walk away thinking we can pray to those who have died. You are looking to defend a practice that has no basis in scripture with scripture and the results are laughable.
They're not dead, Carrie. They are more alive than we are. The fact that we cannot see them doesn't make it any less true.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Mt. 22:32).
Y'all (anti-Catholics) keep laughing and joking around and I'll keep making biblical, rational arguments.
Carrie,
Nick:No, asking the intercession of the saints is not circumventing God anymore than asking your fellow Christians to intercede for you could be considered as circumventing God.
Carrie:Yes, but not that they can hear the prayers of thousands to millions of people on earth from heaven.
N:That argument doesn't work because they are not constrained to time the way we are. It would be a similar principal to how God can hear millions of prayers at once.
Carrie:No one reading the Bible from cover to cover would walk away thinking we can pray to those who have died. You are looking to defend a practice that has no basis in scripture with scripture and the results are laughable.
Nick: A person can read the Bible from cover to cover and come away not knowing nor finding multiple things. That doesn't mean it isn't there or that a case cant be made. To deem passages like Rev 5:8, 6:10 and the Transfiguration as worthless is simply your bias speaking.
They're not dead, Carrie.
They are dead to us. Dead as in not alive on this earth. That is why I put the qualifiers in there so I wouldn't have to deal with that strawman.
It would be a similar principal to how God can hear millions of prayers at once
Youch. Do you even realize what you are saying?
That doesn't mean it isn't there or that a case cant be made.
Sure, the case can be made for many crazy things if you try. The KKK justifies their own activities using bible verses, that doesn't make them right.
Y'all (anti-Catholics) keep laughing and joking around and I'll keep making biblical, rational arguments.
Dave, you really should try to answer opposers without always resorting to the "anti-Catholic" label. It weakens your position.
I do have to say though, I was just laughing about the Tabitha again this morning. I can't stop, I'm sorry.
I mean, look at the verse:
"But Peter put them all outside, and knelt down and prayed; and turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, arise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. " Acts 9:40
That interaction means that God desires us to speak with the physically dead (Reginald - that means no longer living on earth, not breathing, no heart pumping...) who we assume are alive in heaven and are omniscient (like God - as Nick claims)??
Making a case for conversing with corpses would be a more believable argument, but hopefully that isn't a doctrine in development. Or are people encourage to talk to Pope's bodies that are on display?
I'm glad I make you laugh, Carrie. Laughter is good for the soul (it really is: even medical science has shown that it has a very beneficial effect on psychological well-being).
So if I can make your life happier in that way, I'm pleased. You serve a bit of the same function around here, as a sort of "court jester" or "fool".
Dave,
By your harsh comment I feel I may have offended you by some of my comments.
I apologize if anything I have said here seemed to be insulting you as a person.
No offense taken, but thanks, anyway for your thoughtful remark. My comment was actually serious in the first part and joshing you a bit in the second, based on your statements.
Sorry Dave. I had forgotten that you had replied.
http://gojiras-stomping-ground.b...e-for-
dave.html
Carrie and Gojira (really, Gojira? Is that a play on the old Godzilla dialogue?) have trouble with the Scriptural and Patristic concept of union with God.
Carrie has a problem, apparently, with the saints in glory (who are truly and perfectly united with God) having supernatural powers. Does she remember St. Paul's words "then I shall know, even as I am known?" What does she make of those words?
She seems incredulous that we will be supernatural when we are glorified. What does she make of Jesus' words in John 3? I mean where He specifically states those born of the Spirit act like He does, blowing this way and that, etc, especially in light of Philip's relocation after baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch? And what, I wonder, did Philip see as he was being martyred? Probably just clouds and castles, but certainly not dead (to us) people. Sixth Sense hadn't been written yet.
St. Peter's actions in raising Tabitha had nothing to do with dead people, apparently. Because he didn't contact her. He just sort of thought about baseball and poof! there was Tabitha again. Nobody expected it, it was out of left field. He wasn't raising, contacting, or even thinking about the dead, because what observant Jew would, right? It's just so laughable that you'd pick that example, Dave, really. Ha ha ha. It's a scream. How did you get contact with dead people in a passage about someone raising a dead girl by calling to her to rise...? Jeeeeesh. Oh, wait. You mean you didn't intend for that to be a comprehensive and exhaustive Scriptural defense of saintly intercession in and of itself? Oh.
There are some people who need to grow up and read a little. Something that doesn't carry a Bethany House publishing logo, I mean.
>Carrie:Yes, but not that they can hear the prayers of thousands to millions of people on earth from heaven.
I reply: I am now writing to you using a Computer MADE BY HUMAN HANDS that can do millions of calculations at the speed of light, faster than a human brain (which fuctionally works at the speed of sound) & can multitask. So you are in fact suggesting God the All Powerful Creator of the Universe is served in Heaven by Glorifed Redemed Souls that are inferior to my human made Computer?
So you are further suggesting a disembodied spirit which is no longer bound by the limitations of the physical body CAN'T hear & discern the prayers of millions BUT while that spirit was "alive" on Earth they can build computers that can process millions of E-mails?
I could never take this particular Protestant argument seriously. I don't see how anybody else could? It's just so weak & ultimatly insulting to God.
The idea behind this criticism is that hearing millions of prayers somehow makes a Saint a god. Well if that where true then stop being a hypocrite and bow down to your god-computer.
Long story short hearing millions of prayer isn't god like behavior.
That's a great argument, Jim. Thanks!
Mike,
What can I say besides you have some very bad exegesis.
did Philip see as he was being martyred? Probably just clouds and castles, but certainly not dead (to us) people.
I suggest you read that passage again. All Stephen saw was God. Where are there dead saints in that passage???
with the saints in glory (who are truly and perfectly united with God) having supernatural powers.
my comment was cut off:
with the saints in glory (who are truly and perfectly united with God) having supernatural powers.
TRY AGAIN:
with the saints in glory (who are truly and perfectly united with God) having supernatural powers.
I realize the catechism about you becoming gods is clouding your judgement, but you really need to do some reading yourself. There are no biblical passages that imply such a thing.
The idea behind this criticism is that hearing millions of prayers somehow makes a Saint a god. Well if that where true then stop being a hypocrite and bow down to your god-computer.
Can your computer hear your thoughts? Do you send emails by mental telepathy?
Nowhere in scripture does it say that God will give the saints in heaven omniscience. What is said throughout scripture is that God does not share his glory, that he wants a personal relationship with us directly, and that Jesus is our mediator and high priest. Whenever prayer is talked about, the prayers are always TO God, not anyone else.
If you think a computer comes anywhere close to the glory of the creator of the universe then you are the one that needs to bow down to your computer. I'll take my glorified body and being in the presence of God anyday over being a computer. I don't need to be omniscient to be better than a man-made machine when I am glorified by God.
You are trying to support a man-made tradition by bad logic and bad exegesis instead of going to the totality of scripture and seeing what it says.
Carrie, I didn't write anything about computers, Jim did. Take it up with him.
Acts 7:55-56 "But he, full of the holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.'"
Sounds like he saw more than God to me. Glory, heavens opened up.... Unless of course you have some special gnosis that tells you "heavens opened up" means "God" and "glory of God" means "God." Do you worship the "heavens"? Or His glory, say in the Temple, or do you worship God? You just said "all Stephen saw was God," but I just quoted it and it says he saw more. Are the saints not in heaven when it was opened up? How do you know? Where are you exegeting that from?
You said, "There are no biblical passages that imply such a thing." I already gave you one, which is all it would take. Go re-read my post and see if you can find it. (Hint: has to do with "knowing" and "being known.")
And it isn't my catehism that I relied on. Lots and lots of saints who learned from the Apostles and their successors before your sole, infallible rule of faith was collected and canonized. I know, how silly of me to listen to the preachers of the first millenium. We should only listen to the ones after 1530 or thereabouts, right?
I also wanted to mention 1 John 3:2. That's two. Want some more?
>>The idea behind this criticism is that hearing millions of prayers somehow makes a Saint a god. Well if that where true then stop being a hypocrite and bow down to your god-computer.
>Can your computer hear your thoughts? Do you send emails by mental telepathy?
I reply: I don't do bait & switch arguments it is a waste of my time. I don't know how God or the Saints "hear" my prayers & I don't need to know. Your original argument was " can they hear the prayers of thousands to millions of people on earth from heaven". Your argument, taken literally at face value was addressing the large volume of prayers that a popular Saint might have to process. Clearly if man can make machines that can process a large amout of data it should be a no-brain for the King of Heaven to gift souls with that power.
>Nowhere in scripture does it say that God will give the saints in heaven omniscience.
I reply: You error here is assuming it would require omniscience for a Saint to hear millions of prayers & that is logically absurd. By this argument Computers are "omniscience" because they can process millions of calulations & millions of E-mails. It's clearly doesn't require omniscience to hear & process millions of prayers since the number of people who pray to a Saint would be by definition be a finite number. Omniscience mean knowing All & having an Infinite amount of knowlege. At any given time an infinite number of people are not praying(nor logically can an infinite number of people exist or they collectively by nature would be equal to God & THAT is absurd) only a finite number of people are praying at any given time.
>What is said throughout scripture is that God does not share his glory, that he wants a personal relationship with us directly, and that Jesus is our mediator and high priest. Whenever prayer is talked about, the prayers are always TO God, not anyone else.
I reply: Your unproven assumption here is the idea Saints hearing prayers from those on Earth & then offering their prayers for them is the same as God "sharing his glory"(i.e. Divine Glory ment ONLY for Him). It is not thus & the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise since EVERY ancient Christian Cburch & even Orthodox Judaism teaches & believes in prayer to Saints. The idea Saints don't & can't hear our prayers is a 16th century novelty. Nothing more.
The burden of proof is on the Johnny come lately so called "Reformers".
>If you think a computer comes anywhere close to the glory of the creator of the universe then you are the one that needs to bow down to your computer. I'll take my glorified body and being in the presence of God anyday over being a computer. I don't need to be omniscient to be better than a man-made machine when I am glorified by God.
I reply: You don't need to be omniscient to hear a million prayers either. A glorifed soul in heaven could do it with ease. Even Mary herself will at most hear the prayers
Even Mary herself will at most hear the prayers of a Billion Catholics, 250 million Eastern Orthodox, 50 million oriental Orthodox, a milliom or so High Church Anglicans & Lutherans. Plus a few million Muslims. Even if she heard a trillion prayers the number Trillion is still a finite number & infinitly less than the Number Infinity & it would not require the power of omniscience.
That is your error. Sorry, but the existence of Computers CLEARLY proves it doesn't requre Divine Omniscient to process a large amount of information. Since any number of prayers directed at a Saint would be a finite number.
>You are trying to support a man-made tradition by bad logic and bad exegesis instead of going to the totality of scripture and seeing what it says.
I've read Dave Armstrongs Biblical Arguments & they are solid. They & similar arguments by other Catholics have convinced me the Protestants ARE NOT the ones going to the totality of scripture and seeing what it says. Rather they are the ones relying on man-made tradition bad logic and bad exegesis. After all their view is the Johnny come lately one that arrose 1500 years after the fact. I can find prayers to Saints going back to the second century on the walls of the Catacombs. I can find in Orthodox Jewish Sidders prayers to their passed on Relatives to interceed for the living before the Shekeinah. You view is IMHO the man made tradition.
Great comments again, Jim. Thanks!
We should only listen to the ones after 1530 or thereabouts, right?
This is a standard Ctaholic mistake. Because you listen to men you assume that Prots do also, just different men. I can tell you that I was saved and walking with the Lord for many years without knowing squat about the Reformers. I still know very little. My beliefs are based solely on the Bible.
Second, to go from God and God's glory to saints in heaven is a huge jump. That right there is bad exegesis - reading into scripture what you want to be there.
Ben,
Perhaps we disagree on terminology, but when I think of "omniscience" I think of God - the only one who is truly "all-knowing". I see know reasons from the scriptures to believe we will become gods as your catechism says.
As far as the computer analogy, I felt that was a weak premise. You seem enamored by the "power" of computers to process infinite amounts of data, yet in reality, computers are just a man-made machine that can't even change a light bulb.
You seem to imply that computers are far more wonderous than humans, therefore, when we reach heaven we must certainly obtain greater "power" than the basic desktop.
Yet even if I were to retain the same limitations in heaven that I have on earth (like inability to calculate at the level of a computer) I am still a far greater creation than a computer. Biologically I am MUCH more complicated than a computer and I have the ability to do many more things than a computer can ever do.
That is because I am the product of the creator of the universe, rather than the product on men. Being created in the image of God alone makes me infinitely more amazing than a computer.
This is where the Catholic mindset baffles me. You always seem to need a bigger and better God. One who will make you into your own little god in heaven. One whose invisible presence in your life (visually speaking) isn't enough, you need pomp and circumstance (statues, relics, etc.) One is isn't personal enough to answer your prayers, you need to pray to others to cover the bases.
Why is it when you default to a "God can do whatever he wants" it always works out great for you? Certainly God could make us all just his lowly servants in heaven if he wanted, right? Would you not be satisfied with just that?
Here's a little portion from my reply to Steve Hays, relevant to this topic:
How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?
Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense.
----------------------
Also (added now): there is such a thing as a glorified body, that the elect will one day possess. And we are told that "we shall be like him". Now, we know that Jesus could pass through walls after His Resurrection. He was not subject to what we perceive in our present understanding as the conventional laws of physics.
If He had those traits, the saved elect will to some extent too (based on clear biblical indications). We also know that eternity is different from time. God is outside of time. The saints who are with Him will also be, because heaven is not a temporal state or condition.
All those factors considered together make it quite biblically plausible indeed that a saint could and does have the ability to hear millions of prayers, one-by-one, because they transcend the limitations of physics as we know them.
They will be like (to use a C.S. Lewis analogy) an author to his book. Her can write some of it, leave it for two months, and come back to the same spot where he left off. The author is outside of the "time" of the plot and sequence of his book. He's in a different realm altogether. That's how saints are with regard to hearing our intercessory prayer requests.
The trouble with some Protestants is that they are insufficiently supernatural and seem to have such a dim comprehension of the incredible characteristics of heaven and glorified bodies, which is odd, since there is nothing much here where Catholics and Protestants would disagree.
Since critics along these lines apparently haven't sufficiently reflected on such things, they make rather dumb mistakes, such as collapsing any supra-temporal scenarios into a supposed (quite absurd and idolatrous) claimed omniscience or omnipotence, which isn't remotely necessary to do.
It's as if they can't conceive of any heavenly reality that is superior to our earthly experience and capabilities, but inferior to God's extraordinary and unique attributes.
The "either/or" false dichotomy stupefied mindset again . . .
Very weird, but it goes to show once again that an anti-Catholic will go to any ridiculous, illogical extreme when warring against Catholicism. They'll quickly ditch their mind and logical and coherent thought in the rush to "refute.
>Yet even if I were to retain the same limitations in heaven that I have on earth (like inability to calculate at the level of a computer) I am still a far greater creation than a computer.
I reply: Off topic. You questioned the ability of a Soul in Heaven to hear millions of prayers. I showed that it was possible within the powers of human ability(via the making of computers) thus it would be a piece of cake for the Almighty to gift his creations with said ability & it would not require God sharing his exclusive Divine Glory or sharing the power of divine omnicience.
>This is where the Catholic mindset baffles me. You always seem to need a bigger and better God. One who will make you into your own little god in heaven. One whose invisible presence in your life (visually speaking) isn't enough, you need pomp and circumstance (statues, relics, etc.) One is isn't personal enough to answer your prayers, you need to pray to others to cover the bases.
I reply: Rather we acknowlege the gifts God has given us & will give with graditude. Rather than down play them for the sake of a 16th century man made tradition that is an affront to the Faith of the whole Christian World.
>I see know reasons from the scriptures to believe we will become gods as your catechism says.
I reply: The catechism nowhere claims Catholics will be gods. That is a lie madam & you should be ashamed of yourself for speaking it.
Repent. Disagree with the Catholic truth if you must but distorting Catholic teaching ONLY makes you look like you are acting in bad faith.
Hey as a rule (accept once for satirical purposes) I don't go around claim Protestants worship Martin Luther as a god claiming we believe the Lord will make us gods is just as dishonest.
Repent.
Commenting by HaloScan
