- - - - - -Before we go any further with this, I need clarification as to where you stand regarding two points of mine:
- Do you agree that the NT references the DB's, as well as the Septuagint, which included the DB's?
- Do you agree that, if it is a rule for canonicity that a book be referenced in the NT, then the DB's should be included?
That said, on to your most recent responses:
Hmmm.... Now this is clearly redherring right here Phat.You are either using the term "red herring" incorrectly, or you are accusing me of something I did not do. A red herring is an argument that distracts the audience from the topic at hand by introducing an irrelevant topic.
For example, many people try to refute papal infallibility by bringing up the sins of various popes (when in all actuality infallibility has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a pope will sin). The introduction of such an argument is a red herring. Of course, Catholics who don't know better latch on to this argument and begin trying to vindicate the popes' behavior instead of sticking to the topic of infallibility. When this happens, they have fallen for the red herring and the opponent has been given the luxury of not having to respond to the actual evidence for papal infallibility.
It is clear that I have not used the "red herring" logical fallacy because the topic is prayer for the dead and all I did was give examples of this in your canon.
Peter, Elijah and Jesus first of all did Miracles of the Divine. [. . .] From [2 Mac 12:40-45] we see clearly that they prayed for the dead to have their sin removed unlike anyone quoted in the scriptures you mentioned above. They also made reconciliation for the dead that they might be delivered from sin. This is a no-no. The alms and sin offering given in scripture are for people who are alive not dead. The prayers of Jesus, Peter, and Elijah was for Life not that the persons sin be removed. Please just take the thought a little further for the Truth. Just saying that they prayed for the dead and stopping there will leave you in error unless you articulate their results. It's clearly not the point of the prayers offered there in 2 Mac., their intentions was clearly something different, and the remission of sin after (physical) death isn't founded in the Holy Scriptures.So let me get this straight, you think that it's ok to pray for the dead, as long as you are praying for them to come back to life (and not that their sin would be removed)? I thought protestants believed that all forms of praying for the dead are prohibited.
Secondly, as far as almsgiving to atone for sin is concerned, lets stick to the original passages in question. You said earlier that you were concerned with Tobit 12:8-9 and Ecclus. 3:30 because they teach that one can atone for sin via almsgiving. But, just now you seemed to say that atoning for sin via almsgiving was ok as long as it was for the living and not the dead. Is that what you're saying? If so, then we can also drop that argument against Tobit and Sirach (that they should be rejected because they endorse atoning for sin via almsgiving).
Thus, if my assumptions are correct, we have now dropped Redeemed's arguments against Sirach and Tobit. This leaves only the argument against 2 Macc, that it should be rejected b/c it endorses prayers for the dead.
Your quotation of Paul is surely a redherring. Is Onesiph'orus dead or his household? This therefore can in no way be compared to the teaching or the intention of Paul's letter. Neither did Paul pray for his sins to be removed as if Onesiph'orus was in a intermediate state, and as is well known of the Theology of Paul, he asked for Mercy. No payment.You misapplied the term "red herring" again, but I'll let it slide ;)
Also, since the original charge is that praying for the dead is prohibited, let's first establish whether or not Elijah, Peter, Paul, and Jesus are praying for the dead. After that, we can establish the legitimate reasons for doing so.
It's obvious to me that they are all praying for the dead in the passages I cited. As for Paul, he says two prayers in 2 Tim 1:16-18, one for the household of Onesiph'orus (vs. 16) and one for Onesiph'orus himself (vs. 18). The prayer for Onesiph'orus is that he will find mercy from the Lord "on that Day." The "day" in question is Judgment Day, as evidenced by Paul's usage of the word in his other letters (cf. Rom 2:5,16; 1 Cor 1:8; 3:13; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:6,10; 2:16; 1 Thes 5:2,4,5,8; 2 Thes 2:2,3; 2 Tim 4:8). But, the implication is that Onesiph'orus is already dead. Thus, Paul is praying for the dead, specifically Onesiph'orus, that he will find mercy upon his judgment.
Intermediate state huh. Well I see that you may have a point in that people are in intermediate states for a few minutes or longest 4 days in scripture, but is this consistent with the intermediate state defined by Catholics.Well, in the case of Elijah and Jesus, the intermediate state was Hades, because at that time Jesus had yet to defeat Hades and open the gates of Heaven. But, in the case of Peter, the intermediate state is Purgatory. There's really no other explanation for it, since Peter brought Tabitha back to life after Jesus' victory over Hades.
So these are teachings clearly rejected by the Reformers and Luther's quote shows that he still had some growing to do....LOL...HAHA!! I see.
This is no evidence but more like indictment that the DB's are in opposition to Holy Writ.This you have yet to prove.