Is it right to ask others to pray for us?

[psalms 91]

lol no but I love it

 

[Full O Beans]

thats why they were " sad ..you see ? ouch

Oh, a groaner!



LOL!

 

[MoreCoffee]

there is a reason maccabees is considered ...

1 & 2 Maccabees are fully canonical holy scripture.

 

[Brighten04]

1 & 2 Maccabees are fully canonical holy scripture.

Only since when?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Only since when?

Since 398 AD at the latest, but since the decisions of the councils in Carthage and Hippo were also made in Rome some decades earlier and since the LXX and old Latin bibles include those books the practical definition goes back to to around 200 BC.

 

[Brighten04]

Since 398 AD at the latest, but since the decisions of the councils in Carthage and Hippo were also made in Rome some decades earlier and since the LXX and old Latin bibles include those books the practical definition goes back to to around 200 BC.

Why do some Bibles have a section called the Apocrypha?

During the period between the completion of the Old Testament and the first writings included in the New Testament (i.e. the period between 450 BC and 50 AD), many essays, psalms and historical accounts circulated throughout the synagogues and early churches. Some of these documents gradually came to be regarded by certain of the believers as actually inspired and deserving of a place in the canon.

We usually date the first definite listing of the accepted books of the Bible as occurring around 367 AD. However, a second set of booklets had been assembled through the years, and these were given the name Apocrypha (meaning "hidden"). Though they are all from the time before the birth of Christ, they were never included in the Hebrew Bible. However, many Christians regarded them as valuable for reading and edification, and in some editions of the Bible they were interspersed among the Old Testament books.

Then Martin Luther, in his Bible translation of 1534, extracted the apocryphal books from their usual places in the Old Testament, and had them printed at the end of the Old Testament. He stated that they "are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading." After that, many Protestant Bibles omitted them completely. However, in 1546 the Roman Catholic Council of Trent specifically listed the apocryphal books approved by the Roman Catholic Church as inspired and they are always included in Roman Catholic Bibles and are usually interspersed among the books of the Old Testament.

The Apocrypha generally consists of 14 booklets of which 1 and 2 Maccabees and 1 Esdras are the main documents and form the bulk of the apocryphal writings. First Maccabees is an historical account of the struggle of the Maccabee family and their followers for Jewish independence from 167 to 134 BC. Second Maccabees covers the same ground but dramatizes the accounts and makes moral and doctrinal observations. Other books are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, and The Wisdom of Solomon.

Since neither Jesus nor the apostles make any reference to the apocryphal books, most Christians have regarded their authority as secondary to that of the 39 books of the Old Testament. Yet within these apocryphal books are passages of great piety and historical information. We should therefore approach the Apocrypha with a discerning mind and heart, and carefully discriminate between that which is in harmony with the essentials of the Christian faith and that which deviates from what is taught in the 66 books of the canon. We have the Lord's promise that he will lead us into the truth, and we live by that promise in everything we read.
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/...e-bibles-have-a-section-called-the-apocrypha/

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why do some Bibles have a section called the Apocrypha?...

Mainly because Martin Luther and the other 16th century leaders of the denominations being created at that time decided that the Jewish Tanach was the 'correct' source for the Christian old testament. They may have mistakenly believed that the Tanach as it existed in the 16th century was the source from which the apostles drew when they referred to holy scripture.

 

[Brighten04]

Mainly because Martin Luther and the other 16th century leaders of the denominations being created at that time decided that the Jewish Tanach was the 'correct' source for the Christian old testament. They may have mistakenly believed that the Tanach as it existed in the 16th century was the source from which the apostles drew when they referred to holy scripture.

So the Apocrypha is not canon?

 

[MoreCoffee]

So the Apocrypha is not canon?

These are the canonical books of the bible:

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).

 

[Alithis]

no the books of the maccabess and the others are not canon ..
they contain error ..some of it obvious .

-"Roman Catholics argue that the early church fathers quoted from these books (the first 12) and looked at them as Scripture. They also argue that church counsels throughout the ages have always confirmed their canonicity; therefore, this shows they should be regarded as God's Word. The problem with this is, the early church fathers were Roman Catholics themselves (see www.atruechurch.info/earlychurchfathers.html). And, the church counsels they refer to were Roman Catholic Church counsels. So what we have here is Roman Catholics using earlier Roman Catholics to prove their point.- i find it almost embarrassing. In Colossians 2:8, Paul warns against this kind of thing (the traditions of men).

one of the main weapons of argumentative this huge cult uses is to flood the hearer with ambiguous reference in large quantities until they are so overwhelmed by a hundred differing rabbit holes they get confused as to what the truth was in the first place .
the remedy for this is to always go back to the direct word of God and demand it remains the only foundation .

this practice of reinforcing a lie with a hundred smaller lies can only come from the father of lies .

 

[MoreCoffee]

We pray for one another so why does it seem, to you, that the saints in heaven would not pray for us?

 

[Full O Beans]

We pray for one another so why does it seem, to you, that the saints in heaven would not pray for us?

They are enjoying their reward, their home, their King.

 

[Alithis]

They are enjoying their reward, their home, their King.

AND ... seeking to commune with or invoke the spirits of those departed from us remains an act of rebellion againt God .no mater how its painted or whose name it is your invoking .. invoking spirits is sometimes done by fastings and incantations ..chanting . hail mary's are nothing more then incantations to invoke her departed spirit and as such are a clear violation of Gods will - thus - sin .communicating with those dead ( dead, here, is defined as" passed from this world " ) is a violation of the will of God .

it is also a faithless act and without faith it is impossible to please God . to think or even consider that god can't hear you and you must therefore communicate with him via another is denying that he is all knowing and omnipresent -it is a prayer of unbelief. thus - sin

to pray is to "ask" .. we make petition to god the word means - to ask earnestly ..its called prayer .

to "ask" a departed spirit and then say your not "praying" to them ..is just ,wow ,so dishonest .
-----------------

"no one comes to the father but through me .." - JEsus

 

[MoreCoffee]

They are enjoying their reward, their home, their King.

Does that mean they cease caring about the people that they love who remain on Earth? Are they indifferent because their joy makes them uncaring?

 

[Full O Beans]

Does that mean they cease caring about the people that they love who remain on Earth? Are they indifferent because their joy makes them uncaring?

Yes...they haven't a care for the things of this world. All they can think of is Jesus and the glory of God!

Our connection with them is cut off.

 

[visionary]

Pray for one another...James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does that mean they cease caring about the people that they love who remain on Earth? Are they indifferent because their joy makes them uncaring?

Yes...they haven't a care for the things of this world. All they can think of is Jesus and the glory of God!

Our connection with them is cut off.

I've never thought of heaven as a loveless place or as a place where those we loved on Earth cease to matter to us. If your view is really what you believe and what your meeting teaches then it is a very unpleasant 'heaven' indeed.

 

[Josiah]

I've never thought of heaven as a loveless place or as a place where those we loved on Earth cease to matter to us. If your view is really what you believe and what your meeting teaches then it is a very unpleasant 'heaven' indeed.

... and I've never thought of heaven as a place of DEATH. I've always thought of heaven as life AFTER death.

 

[Full O Beans]

I've never thought of heaven as a loveless place or as a place where those we loved on Earth cease to matter to us. If your view is really what you believe and what your meeting teaches then it is a very unpleasant 'heaven' indeed.

It's not that the people there don't love us. Their love for Jesus and their being in the very presence of the Almighty God pales in comparison. Your view wants to make it like a very nice earth. It is far beyond that.

Leave them be. Let them enjoy their reward, while we get to doing the Father's will on earth.

 

[Brighten04]

Samuel was pretty teed of at being disturbed.
1Sam. 28:15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.KJV

1Sam. 28:15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

“I am in great distress,” Saul said. “The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has departed from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do.”

16 Samuel said, “Why do you consult me, now that the Lord has departed from you and become your enemy?

IOW Samuel said " Why are you petitioning me?"