Christians: What's your relationship with the dead?

reply to post by LeSigh

John 11:23-27
“Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise.’ Martha said to him, ‘I know he will rise, in the resurrection on the last day.’”

Why did you include this verse when it contradicts the beliefs you laid out at the start of your post...The 'last day' has not come yet so therefore no resurrection yet.

You make particularly distinction between those who are living and dead yet you mistake that anyone who died in Christ is considered by Him to be alive but is described as being asleep as your verse in Matthew 27:51-53, 'the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised'. Those mentioned here who had died 'in Christ' were considered by God to be asleep.
-----

Your Hebrews 12:1, 'since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses'....the 'cloud' is the throngs of angels in heaven. It does not support praying to the saints at all...the angels in heaven have been witness to the events on earth from the beginning.

John 8:51
Obviously people do see death, the death that is being talked about here is the second death that involves the annihilation of the soul.

None of the verses support the idea you are promoting that all those you are deceased 'in Christ' go to heaven at any time period other than on the 'last day' (at the second coming)

Scripture that speaks of prayers for the dead:
2 Maccabees, 12:40-46.

Maccabees is in the Catholic Bible which has be shown to be unreliable (such books were rejected by the early Christians for good reason)....your passage isn't considered 'scriptural'/from God...if you want to pass off this text then you should make others reading it aware that it is only in certain select streams of Bibles that have it

reply to post by LeSigh

The saints of the Church are ALIVE in Christ. I will ask them to pray for me,

Currently 'asleep' in Christ other than the few that were resurrected at Jesus' resurrection. Do you care to name any of the 'saints' that you know acutally particiapated in that resurrection? How can you ask them to pray for you if you aren't to know their name...?

Am I missing something in your verse I Timothy 2:4, I don't see how it relates to what you say at all.

Matthew 27:52-53....it says 'many' of the saints not all, and only at that specific time. Can anyone provide proof that they know anyone by name that was apart of that resurrection or are they just guessing.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Dead Saints Appear On Earth to Interact With Men
1 Sam 28:12-15 with Ecclesiasticus 46:20; 2 Macc 15:13-16; Mt 17:1-3 and 27:50-53; Rev 11:3

1 Sam 28:12-15 The Witch brought up a demon impersonating Samuel that came up from underneath the earth

Ecclesiasticus - not in my bible (reject by the early Christians for good reason)
2 Macc - not in my bible (reject by the early Christians for good reason)
Mt 17:1-3 - yes the only ones we know by name that have been translated to heaven as angels...I thought you rejected the OT though which makes mention of these events of translation of the living 'Elijah' and the dead 'Moses'.

Revelation 11:3 ...the 'two witnesses' refer to the Old and New Testaments...do you need an analysis to prove this? By including this passage you are showing you don't know what you are talking about especially as it is affirming the merit of the OT. The time period that it refers to of 1260 days (or prophetically 1260 years) is referring to the Bible (both Old and New Testament) that was suppressed by the beast power, the Vatican, during it's main period of rule 538 A.D where the Justinian Decree gave them the right to be a religio-political power and the corrector of heretics to 1798 A.D. when the French army arrested the then Pope and took away his power, thus the beast received it's mortal wound.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic

Scripture that speaks of prayers for the dead:
2 Maccabees, 12:40-46.

Maccabees is in the Catholic Bible which has be shown to be unreliable (such books were rejected by the early Christians for good reason)....your passage isn't considered 'scriptural'/from God...if you want to pass off this text then you should make others reading it aware that it is only in certain select streams of Bibles that have it

What "early Christians"?

Maccabees is included in the 1611 King James Bible, for pity's sake... look in the section labeled "Apocrypha".

Luther ditched it because it didn't agree with his theology, and it should be pointed out, he was rather unsure about Hebrews, James (for obvious reasons, lol,) Jude and Revelation, debated marking them as apocrypha, as well, but wound up just putting them at the end of the New Testament as an indication that they "weren't as canonical" as the Gospels and other Epistles (in his opinion.)

"Early Christians" didn't reject Maccabees, "early Protestants" did. You're off by 1,500 years.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Maccabees is in the Catholic Bible which has be shown to be unreliable (such books were rejected by the early Christians for good reason)....

Wrong.
- The 'Catholic bible' has not been shown to be 'unreliable' and the KJV 'reliable'.
I already posted a whole lotta' info showing the KJV to be totally 'unreliable'. Did you read it?

- Maccabees was accepted by the Jews as being from God for a very long time.

- Early Christians/Church Fathers belief in purgatory Early christians did indeed believe in a purgatory and did not reject 'Maccabees'.

- Quotes from early Christians/Church Fathers showing they believed in purgatory and that they got this belief, in part, from accepting Maccabees.

- If you want to know books rejected by the early church fathers .. look to REVELATION. Up until the 500's it wasn't accepted by many at all, and Polycarp fully rejected it.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

You've already been shown that the bible contradicts itself on whether the saints are asleep or awake and aware. It says both. Therefore, the bible itself is UNRELIABLE in this area. And the bible doesn't contain all knowledge of the afterlife. The bible itself even says so.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Ecclesiasticus - not in my bible (reject by the early Christians for good reason)
2 Macc - not in my bible (reject by the early Christians for good reason)

Not in your bible .. not in your bible ... Keep rejecting that which is inconvenient for you.
More cherry picking

I thought you rejected the OT

I do. But you don't.

Revelation 11:3 ...the 'two witnesses' refer to the Old and New Testaments...

If you want to interpret it that way because it fits into your pre-constructed idea of the afterlife better .. go ahead. However, that is NOT the interpretation of the vast majority of Christians AND it's NOT the interpretation of scripture scholars through the centuries who are better versed on this than you are.

By including this passage you are showing you don't know what you are talking about ..

No. I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. I'm not brainwashed by a cult.

To those representing the Catholic faith, do you believe in this verse;

1 Peter 1:18, Forsasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

Or do you believe that you can buy/earn your way to heaven to make yourself reconciled to God...which gives us the forgiveness of sins, Jesus' blood or giving money to the Church?

Also, by what power are demons cast out of people?

Once I know your answers then I will be able to continue to get back to your most recent comments

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
To those representing the Catholic faith, do you believe in this verse;

1 Peter 1:18, Forsasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

Or do you believe that you can buy/earn your way to heaven to make yourself reconciled to God...which gives us the forgiveness of sins, Jesus' blood or giving money to the Church?

I'm still waiting to see if you apologize for lying about the Jesuits and Catholics in China, as well as claiming that "early Christians" rejected Maccabees.

I believe that, apart from those who believe that we are saved by works, and works alone (which would be anyone who says that the key to salvation is what day you pay more attention to God on,) the differences between Protestant and Catholic views of the role of works is more technical and semantic than anything else. No, you are not saved by giving money to the church, but intentionally not being charitable (when one has the means to be,) clearly indicates a weak or nonexistent faith.

reply to post by silo13


I've already changed because of my belief and faith in Jesus Christ, and you can't unring a rung bell.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

Oh please ... :shk: .... I can see through you like a pane of glass. Catholics dont' think they buy their way to heaven with donations. You really, really, should stop reading those Jack Chick tracts. They are stupifying.


THE TOPIC ... WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEAD??

- The bible doesn't have all the answers (it even says so) and it's unreliable.
- Each religion claims to know all the answers, but they really don't.
- MILLIONS of people have had personal experiences with those who have died.
- MILLIONS of people have had personal experiences with the spirit world - both good and bad.
- MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE tells me that the belief about the 'Communion of Saints' is accurate. I have had encounters with those who have 'died' as well as encounters with the divine and the demonic. I am 100% sure that those who have 'died' are very much alive and active and aware of what is happening on earth. 100% sure. I'm 100% sure that I can pray for them and they can pray for me. We all pray for each other.

To the OP .. that's my answer to your question. My relationship with the dead ... I'm aware that they are aware and active. I talk to some of them. Sometimes they talk to me or make themselves known. If someone who is dead shows up at my house and I dont' want them here, I tell them to get lost (and I sage them away). AND IT WORKS.

Not in your bible .. not in your bible ... Keep rejecting that which is inconvenient for you.
More cherry picking

They are the following: of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.
Forth Session of the Council of Trent
Alternate source

Let's see what we have here from the Council of Trent...'rejecting what is inconvenient for me'....You reject the authority of the Old Testament.

According to this from your own church, you are now excommunicated and deserving of damnation and destruction...'let him be anathema' Dictionary defintion

So you reject Old Testament era books but use them where convenient for you (Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees) to make your case for the state of the dead. That is called cherry picking...

-------

Tobias 12:9 For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

adjensen:

No, you are not saved by giving money to the church, but intentionally not being charitable (when one has the means to be,) clearly indicates a weak or nonexistent faith.

Flyersfan:

Oh please .... I can see through you like a pane of glass. Catholics dont' think they buy their way to heaven with donations. You really, really, should stop reading those Jack Chick tracts. They are stupifying.

According to plain reading of Tobias 12:9 ...by giving of alms, i.e charity to the less fortunate, delivers you from death and purges away all sin. Both of you have said you are not saved by giving money, the plain reading here says you are delivered from death (i.e saved to heaven) and can clean your slate from sin. Am I missing something? It seems like by rejecting this verse both of you are going against the ruling of the 4th session of the Council of Trent and are excommunicated and damn to destruction.

Do you as reject..

Tobias 6:4-8 ...Open the fish, and take the heart and liver and the gall...if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or woman, and the party shall no more be vexed. As for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath witness in his eyes, and he shall be healed.

Do you believe that you are delivered from the possession of a demon through the smoke of the gall bladder of a fish or through the name of Jesus?

Mark 16:17 And signs will follow to those believing in this things: in My name they will cast out demons;

Acts 16:18...But being distressed, and turning to the demonic spirit, Paul said, I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her! And it came out in that hour.

So what is it to be? Should I consider your positions vouching for the worth of these books in making your claim to scriptural authority for the state of the death or should I consider you position heretical to the 'infallible' Latin Vulgate and damnable by your church to destruction

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Paul refers to 2 Maccabees 7 in Hebrews 11:35. Numerous times modern-day non-canonical books are referenced in the Bible, and Christ referred to the LXX when quoting OT scriptures which included the non-canonical books.

Was Christ a heretic? Dude, get off your holier than thou pedestal, you're condemning something Christ Himself did and His apostles, the epitome of self-righteous arrogance.

reply to post by adjensen

What "early Christians"?

The Waldensians for instance (Seventh-Day Adventist see themselves more as the spiritual ancestor of these people and those that predated them than merely an offshoot from the protestant reformation. We see our stream of thought as getting back to the roots of the original Christians.)

A careful study of the history of the ancient Waldenses, and of Bible texts and translations, clearly reveals how inseparable the true Bible is from the true Church. Perhaps this should seem obvious, but we think it should encourage the Church in her loyalty to the Received Text, and its best English translation, the King James Version.
source from an independent baptist article

An Adventist source (using much material from fundamentalist baptist preacher David Otis Fuller):

. . . down through the centuries there were only two streams of manuscripts. The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, began with the Apostolic churches, and reappearing at intervals down the Christian Era among enlightened believers, was protected by the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different phases; by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where the Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian, and the churches of the Reformation. This first stream appears, with very little change, in the Protestant Bibles of many languages, and in English, in that Bible known as the King James Version, the one which has been in use for three hundred years in the English speaking world.
source: Our Authorized Version Vindicated,1930, by Benjamin G. Wilkinson

-------

Maccabees is included in the 1611 King James Bible, for pity's sake... look in the section labeled "Apocrypha".

Adventist don't care that the 1611 KJB had Maccabees in the 'Apocrypha' section...

We hold to the authority of the Masoretic Text...

The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books
source

All my Bibles have their Old Testament derived from the cannonized books of the Jewish Bible (Andrew's study Bible based on NKJV, NIV and a software KJV which doesn't have the Apocrypha section)

Talking about the books in the Old Testament

Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. A popular position is that the Torah was canonized circa 400 BCE, the Prophets circa 200 BCE, and the Writings circa 100 CE wiki: Jewish Bible

I think it best to use the canonized books chosen by the Jewish rabbis (God's chosen people at the time) than anything else, especially when the additional books introduce conflicting doctrine (to say the least)

I suggest you look up the link provide to the Jewish Bible. So which canonized version of the OT should I use...The one finished being canonized around 100 A.D, the time of the early apostles that doesn't include those Apocryphal books as worth being included or the Catholic version which was canonized much later on and then starts to introduce scriptures that are obviously conflicting from plain reading. The point of my argument is that the OT (from the Jewish Bible) and the New Testament (from the Received Text coming through the apostles) is what Adventists hold as scripture and when you analysis the texts properly there is no conflict at all. As of this point in time I have already dismissed perhaps 2/3rds of the texts provided here to support the Catholic stance, some need a little more explaining and some I haven't got to yet. Meanwhile, no one has tried to dismiss any the verses and instances I cited as proof for my position. I am going to make shown that it is not merely a matter of their is verse that support each side, this is not the case, scripture only supports one case.

I would appreciate it if you wrote down which verses you think still support your case that I haven't properly dismissed yet (please don't include 'Apocryphal' OT books as have been rejected from the Jewish Bible).

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


The MT was compiled between the 7th and 10th century A.D., Christ, His apostles, and the apostolic church used the LXX. The reason the Jews compiled the MT was because of their anger that the Christians had adopted the LXX for themselves.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
According to this from your own church,

I didn't say it was my church. I said I think the Catholic belief of 'The Communion of Saints' is accurate and true. That is NOT adopting the entire Catholic faith as mine. I also believe what other faiths say about the 'dead' and other aspects of religious beliefs.

So you reject Old Testament era books but use them where convenient for you

I absolutely reject the Old Testament books. But YOU DO NOT. And therefore, since YOU buy into them, I was showing you what they said. I don't care what they say. But since you cling to your version of scripture and claim the entire thing is believable .. Noahs ark, Adam and Eve and all ... I was showing YOU what the bible says. And the bible says both that the dead are awake and aware of what is happening with the living AND it says that the dead are 'asleep'. It contradicts itself.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic

Tobias 12:9 For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

I wasn't aware that Tobias was written by Christians.

Oh, wait, no, it wasn't. What does it matter if a Jewish writer extols fellow Jews to be charitable? Note that it doesn't say whom it delivers from death, and being charitable would reflect being in harmony with the Law, so I'm not of the mind that this is out of order with Torah.

So what is it to be? Should I consider your positions vouching for the worth of these books in making your claim to scriptural authority for the state of the death or should I consider you position heretical to the 'infallible' Latin Vulgate and damnable by your church to destruction.

I'm not a Fundamentalist, so I don't consider any text to be "infallible," but even if I was, what do I care about what the author of Tobias is suggesting to other Jews? I supported the concept of purgatory when I was a Protestant (as do other Protestants,) without the necessary inclusion of 2 Maccabees.

Look, you're not really arguing from a position of strength here. You've shown that you believe and promote ridiculous conspiracy theories, that you'll lie if you think that it furthers your cause, that you believe you are saved by works, and works alone, and that you hate Christians.

I would suggest, again, that you reflect on how you treat others, and how you hang your faith on "Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy", while ignoring "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

You would have been well good to have read the verse in Tobias that follows the one you posted:

12:10. But they that commit sin and iniquity, are enemies to their own soul.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by LeSigh

 

The saints of the Church are ALIVE in Christ. I will ask them to pray for me,

Currently 'asleep' in Christ other than the few that were resurrected at Jesus' resurrection.

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Rev 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

If you wish to dismiss these (and other) bible verses because they don't match up to what you believe .. if you wish to dismiss the millions and millions of people who have had personal experiences with 'the dead' .. go ahead. You can believe anything you want. But the fact is that the bible does NOT contain all the truth on the matter and the bible contradicts itself.

Believe what you wish.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The debate point was about me deliberately avoiding for my convenience commenting on Ecclesiasticus 46:20; 2 Macc 15:13-16....did Jesus or Paul affirm those specific verses...if not then your point is not useful.

Do you believe that you can cast an evil spirit out of someone based on the power and authority of the smoke of the gall bladder of a fish? Do you believe that by giving money to the less fortunate that it erases your sins?

Try to make your points specific to the example cited.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


I'm not talking about the Catholic church, I'm criticizing you for condemning others for quoting from the same "non-canonical" Jewish scriptures Christ and His apostles referenced. Which makes you out to be holier than Jesus Himself. It's really irrelevant what the RCC teaches or believes, I'm talking about 1st century Christianity.

Are you holier or more righteous than Jesus and Paul?