Why Origen Believed in Intercessory Prayer to the Saints 

🕵️We can create arguments out from Catholic doctrines which can be debatable in a healthy way.

The Matt Dillahunty school of argumentation.

But if we don’t buy the Catholic argument, we just don’t do the practice. No need to present a counter argument, since the Catholic tradition is arguing in the positive. All that is needed to be done is to convincingly cast doubt on the practice. The alternative to praying to the saints and God is just praying to God lol. I think I and other Prots are satisfied with that

@@ryandelaune139 right, but that proves nothing. There is no factually convincing doubt to be cast.

@@Anthony-fk2zu but understand that there’s no significant proof to be had within scripture (as we Prots don’t hold to sacred tradition) that prayer should be given to any but God. The parable about the rich man and Lazarus is not a convincing argument as 1. The point of the parable is to illustrate the impossibility of living for the world and God and 2. It’s difficult to pull a prescriptive action or instruction out of any parable in the first place. The parables are not meant to say “do this” they are meant to give us insight into the character of Christ and how he interacts with us

I agrre! It seems like a productive way to have a dispute as long it stays within the topic and ego doesn't drive the back and forth.

Why do you regard those as "landmarks" They are just true

@@goyonman9655he’s calling them landmarks because he’s referencing them with the context of his personal journey towards the acceptance of these theological positions.

@goyonman9655 They are "just true," but, assuming we're all American, you have to know that broad American Evangelicalism has no real place for those doctrines, and might even repudiate them as "too Catholic."

⁠@@goyonman9655 he just said they were landmarks in *his journey*.

@@StoaoftheSouth Does this "broad American Evangelicalism" include Ortlund????

Good post! Praying for your Andrew!

Gavin’s nice-guy approach is a manipulative tactic to conceal his lies.

I will pray that the Holy Spirit helps you in this discernment.

Not sure if he's a bad faith actor or not but there's some tactics to be had. While his theology puts him in the bottom third of intellectual engagement, he is immensely debatable in anything due to his attitude. That nature spreads his ideas since Catholics continue to make these videos. Let us learn to be wiser.

His resistance to truth and imperviousness to facts seems to relate to the fact that he is financially invested in Protestantism not failing.

Twenty years ago, I asked, "Did Christ really intend for us to be Catholic?" I jumped on the Internet to find out what other Christians believed, and instead of seeing that, all I saw was list upon list of why Catholics were going to hell. I would read the lists and ask, "Do we really believe that? What?! I wasn't taught that!" That's when I discovered the Catechism. The misrepresentations put out there by different Protestant churches solidified my belief in the Catholic Church, because they put me on the path of learning about my religion in a way I never did as a cradle Catholic.

Catholics (and Orthodox) view the Kingdom of God as a hierarchy with Christ at the very top. We participate in Christ's work and find our role within that hierarchy. The Reformers, largely for political reason, wanted to flatten the hierarchy until it was everyone at the same level and only Christ above. Protestant theology has been built on this, which is why human authority gets rejected, and everything is individualistic, just me and my bible and Jesus.

@@sentjojo I think that is a very accurate assessment of protestantism. It was certainly my experience.

Relatively recent convert here as well. One thing that bothers me in the online space of Catholic apologists is that it does not get acknowledged enough, I think, that there were serious challenges before the time of reformation in the church, honestly it was messed up, deeply corrupted...

It's a relatively new channel.

He just started. He'll grow quickly!

His channel’s new but his blog has been around for awhile and the content is, unsurprisingly, amazing.

I've been here for a month or two. Amazing, indeed.

As a Protestant, I love how he builds his arguments bottom-up without Catholic presuppositions. It sets him apart from a lot of other apologists

I absolutely loved your last paragraph. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32

Which passages of Augustine do you have in mind? I’d be curious to take a look myself.

The one Gavin covered were from On Baptism book 2 by Augustine, the claim was was about plenary Councils being able to err. There are some other quotes scattered I need to remember tbh but most of them were not that strong, but my problem was that i found it was fruitless to bring them to people like that as they are void of the historical context, when they were written, in response to who, language used/word analysis, taking into account his broader teaching (by examining other texts written in the same period rather to just claim he contradicts himself over the years), are just some of the things I didn't pay attention to before talking to knowledgeable people about this. Basically being creamed in debates XD @@TravisD.Barrett

" broader teachings of Augustine. " St Augustine's writings are enormous. Extremely difficult for a protestant who attended a seminary with a bible alone emphasis to cover well, let alone all. Few do even in the Catholic Church. Among his other writings, I always recommend his Tractates on the Gospel of St John and On Christian Doctrine. These should be near the top of the list, after the Confessions.

​​@@TruthHasSpokenthere's also the problem of translations. I speak a romance language and have studied Latin in High School. I've been living in an English speaking country for years. St Augustine in English sounds quite different, and a bit robotic and unnatural, when compared to the original Latin and neo Latin translations. The different types of prayer is also an example. Catholic English has those terms too but these works are sometimes translated by prots so they lose all nuance. There's also a lot of works from the ECF that haven't been translated into English yet. This weird parallel universe where the early Church was "proto prot" is pathetic. No such thing. I'd send Gavin to all the countries where the early Christians were martyred. I'm from one of those places. He's such a snake!

Have you read Chemnitz

@@FosterDuncan1 there are many books I wish I have read, this included. Make your point please

@@jimmydavid1993 I’m very tired of Catholic talking about sola scriptoria etc but haven’t got it from the horse. Read the reformers and assess them for your self.

@@FosterDuncan1 reformers indeed. Even that claim is not in the bible, that is, appeal to the reformers😊

Once you have a Protestant catechism then come and debate your appeal to the reformers

One of the reasons for this is that Protestant theological concepts did not exist prior to Hus, Luther, Calvin, and the other self-proclaimed reformers.

​@@Danaluni59 Yeah there's a reason why the oldest Christian most Protestants can name is Luther (if not an even later character!), a guy who is by all measures modern compared to the true early Church. Luther was of the 16th century, yet the earliest biblical analyses are from the 1st and 2nd, then in growing degrees with no stopping. The fact that within all the mind-boggling amounts of ink spent on reading scripture there's not even the consideration of their positions is VERY telling. Luther should've been humbler and asked: were all my predecessors blinded by some demonic influence on virtually every core aspect of the Apostolic Faith, or am I just mistaken somewhere? I continue to hold that the main culprit behind the Reformation in its entirety was that vile mistress named Pride. But if this is the case, which I firmly hold to be, then I cannot call foul play or malicious intent. Even I, too, as I type, constantly have to watch myself from the words flowing from me to place much judgment on their persons, and thus fall too into the clutches of Pride. I've accused Gavin in the past, within my heart and within an older comment, to be a malicious actor. It may not be the case. I don't know how I drifted into this, but I feel like I ought to put these thoughts out there. May God have mercy on Gavin, on me, and on all of us sinners. Amen.

@@crusaderACR 🕵️Are you presupposing that Catholic is the true church?

@@calebjushua9252 I don't see any other candidates. Let me explain (I'll even assume no prior knowledge besides the core claims) Say I knew absolutely nothing of Christian denominations but I wanted to be part of the Christian Church, then I'll naturally go for THE Church and not mere offshoots with novel beliefs. Are these beliefs the ones of the Apostles? Of the disciples of the Apostles and so on? Only four have this historically verifiable heritage: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Assyrian. The Coptic and Assyrian have only ever shrunk and remained heavily ethnic. BAD sign. The other two, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, recognized a single unifying office: The Papacy. The Orthodox claim that the Pope went power hungry then later heretic, even though in the first millennium they considered him both a leader (even if in name only) and the way to identify the True Church (Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclessia). Whatever the disputes are, at first glance the Roman Catholics have the best claim. They, indeed, have outgrown, out studied and out prospered all the others. This is a barebones analysis of how I can say, supposing no prior knowledge, that the Catholic Church is the True Church.

@@crusaderACR 🕵️You laid on the table all the candidates available to your knowledge, and then eliminated one after the other those that fell short to your standard of qualification. Finally, you declared the last remaining one as true. 🚨 The limiting factor in choosing candidates is "verifiable history" thus resulting to only four (4) options. 🚨This is fallacy. You are rejecting the possibility that some truths don't depend on human perception or recognition (based on what is just seen, heard, written etc.). In fact some truths are yet to be discovered. 🕵️Example: Throughout your life, you have only seen dining plates with oval, circle, square, and rectangle shapes. Therefore, you concluded that plates have only four shapes-rejecting the possibility of dining plates having animal shapes like fish-shaped plates. 🙋Truth doesn't work like that. Legitimate evidence is required to establish truth, and not by eliminating options based on debatable standards.

It explains a lot.

Luther said "reason is a whore"; and he didn't scruple to use her, badly...

This reminds me of the "worshipping God" thing The old marriage vows in English included "and I worship thee" Worship used to mean to give someone their due. I can totally see a Catholic in Reformation England arguing for worshipping saints, and a modern English Catholic denying we ever did so. All due to a little word changing meaning. "Yes, I worship Mary and the Saints, as I do my wife. And?"

​@@crusaderACRprotestantism has done a lot of psychological damage when it comes to expression of religious and fraternal sentiments. Imagine being so paranoid that every time you see an icon, think of the Holy Saints in Heaven, etc you're going to slip up and accidentally start offering them cakes 😂 it's crazy.

​​@@Plastikk2000Oh dude, check out New Polity. The damage you have noticed is only the surface. They show that Protestantism has basically led to the fall of Christendom and almost all of our current spiritual woes.

I don't see a lot of ego, mainly contending for the truth.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 to be honest me neither, but it's good that Joe is aware of it and states it.

​@@saintejeannedarc9460Ortlund knows what he's arguing for is not the truth.

@@Plastikk2000 I could say the same thing about Joe. I could accuse him of being a liar, just because he doesn't agree w/ me. That's nasty though. Sometimes people just don't agree, w/ no mal intent.

You sound as though you think the “fathers” are gods! They were fallen sinful men who can actually be wrong and make errors and be downright unbiblical and may not even have been saved and led by the Holy Spirit who leads us into the truth - the truth of God and His word! Please remember just because they were Catholic does not mean they were saved!! Belonging to any denomination does not mean one is saved. Salvation is a work of God and God alone. Who gets saved is Hid choice not ours and baptism and sacraments n church attendance does not save anyone. kay

@@mikekayanderson408 No he doesn't. Nowhere he says such a thing, that they are gods, they are of course men and falible. The problem is that Gavin miss understands them. Btw "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, " 1 Peter 3:21

@@mikekayanderson408You are a blasphemer

I agree! I love Suan’s arguments but Joe’s succinctness allows for the points to be easily seen and more likely to be answered by Gavin!

@@mikekayanderson408 You've inserted yourself into the middle of a conversation you know nothing about. Ortlund is the one who claims the fathers are on his side. HE is the one who sees value in the fathers witness/testimony (though you should too!) and that's why the conversation has focused on them. Why don't you accuse Ortlund of thinking the fathers are gods??

can you imagine how hard this would have been if green shirt gavin didn't wear a different shirt in that video.

Gavin 1 and gavin 2 just doesnt have the same ring to it

Yes it sure is. Prayer is prayer, and should be offered to God. Origen was very clear that prayer should be offered only to God, not people, not angels. The quotes Gavin showed to that effect were too too strong against it for these to disqualify them. If I only saw these quotes, I could see possible loopholes that Origen might have believed in the practice, but not taken w/ the full context of the other ones.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 And the other quotes do not put Gavin’s quotes into context? You cannot go from others besides God to Only to God. That is what you are doing. It’s like James 2. It puts Paul’s writings on faith and works into context. But Protestantism does the opposite though James was written first. If they don’t outright just ignore James chapter 2. Watch the video again and get the proper order of things. Your thinking is reversing the proper context. More information paints a clearer picture. It doesn’t make your preconceived opinions.

@@paulmualdeave5063 Origen stated too strongly that prayer should only be offered to God. These quotes don't change that. It has nothing to do w/ my preconceived ideas. I didn't have them concerning Origen. I went in a blank slate on that, curious to see what was actually there. You go in w/ the idea that you pray to saints, and that all church fathers always agree w/ you on all things. This is the Catholic view, so that's what you're going to see. I go in w/ the view that many of them agreed w/ Catholic views on a lot of things, but sometimes I see that they don't agree w/ all modern Catholic views. Some of the doctrines evolved over time, so not all church fathers, esp. early ones always will agree w/ them.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 So, you missed the part about there being four types of prayer and you are only concentrating on one of the four

@@saintejeannedarc9460 To take your belief then, you can pray only to God and not Jesus per Origen, because the definition of prayer you are using is the “mood” that is a prayer only to God the Father, “direct Prayer”. The only “mood” that involves only God is the “prayer mood”, “sometimes called direct prayer”: Per video: Four types of moods per 1 Tim 2: 1-2: supplication (“requests”), prayers (“direct prayer”), intercessions and thanksgiving. On Prayer, 9 by Origen: Requests ask for something. Prayer is directed to the “glorious one”. Intercession: asking someone in a better position to you (ex: ask someone to help you). A person on land is in a better position than someone drowning and someone in heaven is in a better position that someone in in heaven as they are literally alive and with God. “God is the God of the living, not the dead, for to him all are alive.” Thanksgiving: to thank someone Recipient of the four moods above: On Prayer, 9-10 by Origin: 1 Tim 2:1-2 again. Supplications: Father, the Son and the saints (people in heaven, Luke 12:42-48 with 42-44 being someone in heaven immediately, 45-46 is someone going to hell and 47-48 are purgatory before someone goes to heaven). Prayer: direct prayer, only to the Father. This is the one you are doing but note, it doesn’t go to Jesus, the son. The Our Father. Intercession: Father, Son, saints and others. Thanksgiving: Father, Son, Saints and other people. You haven’t really said why you reject these parts of the video. That is what you are doing. You are basically saying, I have my preconceived belief that I can only pray to God in all four moods. No reason. Ive noticed this about Gavin too. He will just outright reject a Catholic position and not give a reason. Example: direct prayer is only to God the Father. The Our Father is a direct prayer to the Father. Does it go to Jesus? No. Jesus is God but not God the Father. You would need to show how we can do direct prayer to Jesus per Origen. Ill assume you are like Catholics and believe we can pray to the Son. All you have to do is show how Origin says we can do a “direct prayer” to the Son and you have defeated his argument.

The prosperity gospel is similar to the sale of indulgences

​@@michaelcunis8329you don't know what you're talking about.

We can hope and pray!

This man misrepresented almost everything Dr. Ortlund said

@@goyonman9655 explain yourself

@@salvadorhenriquez4091 What's there to explain He kept misrepresenting Dr. Ortlund

@@goyonman9655 example of missrepresentation?

Sadly, with Ortlund types, they can simply say "misrepresentation" one more time and he will have the last word.

I also liked his caveat between estrangement and family members being distant from each other

For reals.

The irenic tone hopefully won't fade away when Gavin (green or blue) is further presented with these very compelling arguments by Joe.

@@shepherdson6189He’ll unfortunately just ignore them I think and move on to another topic.

I've started to notice that, he gets upset about some pretty benign stuff, especially while operating on the Internet of all places

And also Rosary of Blessed Mother. They are always blessed mother to pray but that is intercession to God/Jesus Christ.

​@@daytimestudios3678ORE RESULTS Who wrote the Rosary? St. Dominic Tradition does hold that St. Dominic (d. 1221) devised the rosary as we know it. Moved by a vision of our Blessed Mother, he preached the use of the rosary in his missionary work among the Albigensians, who had denied the mystery of Christ.

@@TriciaPerry-ef7bi The Rosary is a bible study of the life of Jesus as seen through the eyes of Mary. And our prayers to Mary are entirely scripturally based. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it: 676 This twofold movement of prayer to Mary has found a privileged expression in the Ave Maria: Hail Mary [or Rejoice, Mary]: the greeting of the angel Gabriel opens this prayer. It is God himself who, through his angel as intermediary, greets Mary. Our prayer dares to take up this greeting to Mary with the regard God had for the lowliness of his humble servant and to exult in the joy he finds in her. Full of grace, the Lord is with thee: These two phrases of the angel's greeting shed light on one another. Mary is full of grace because the Lord is with her. The grace with which she is filled is the presence of him who is the source of all grace. "Rejoice . . . O Daughter of Jerusalem . . . the Lord your God is in your midst." Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is "the dwelling of God . . . with men." Full of grace, Mary is wholly given over to him who has come to dwell in her and whom she is about to give to the world. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. After the angel's greeting, we make Elizabeth's greeting our own. "Filled with the Holy Spirit," Elizabeth is the first in the long succession of generations who have called Mary "blessed." "Blessed is she who believed. . . . " Mary is "blessed among women" because she believed in the fulfillment of the Lord's word. Abraham, because of his faith, became a blessing for all the nations of the earth. Mary, because of her faith, became the mother of believers, through whom all nations of the earth receive him who is God's own blessing: Jesus, the "fruit of thy womb."

I’m a Protestant and see no problem with this. What are u talking about

@@FosterDuncan1 😳. You’re a Protestant and you confess your sins to someone who isn’t God to have them forgiven. Isn’t the sole righteousness of Christ imputed to you when you believe?

@@bman5257 yes I’m Lutheran. By the power of Christ given by the church a paster/priest can forgive sins.

@@FosterDuncan1 whoa that’s wild. I didn’t know that, my b. I knew you guys had confession, but I don’t know how to square the forgiveness of sins with imputation.

@@bman5257 also think many anglicans do it as well

No, you need to understand that Joe's first two videos were FULL of misrepresentations and mischaracterizations. I'm a Protestant who agrees with Gavin on A LOT, and I watched both of Joe's videos on this, and during both videos, I at almost no point felt Joe was dealing with what I actually believe as a Protestant. He was always tearing down a strawman or something I don't believe at all. If Joe is going to deal with these issues, he needs to deal with what we actually believe and what we actually say, not what maybe some layman out there believes but not what anyone seriously researching the issues believes

​@@bersules8Do you think you've done something here? Copying Gen Z insults to strangers on the internet rather than meaningfully engaging with what I'm saying? I suppose that's why you're on an anonymous account, so you can be a pretend tough guy.

Gavin just says I don’t see it as a response to any real argument or moves the goalposts at warp speed. His video on the Eucharist was the best example of muddying the waters I’ve ever seen. Made no arguemnet for his baptists interpretation and relied on historic Protestantism for his defense, he is not a historic Protestant lol.

@@natebozeman4510 this is a tactic known as gaslighting. Nobody's crazy here man. I converted to the Catholic faith from a form of calvinist reformed protestanism. One of the things that I like so much about Joe is how accurate and careful he is about addressing the actual points of contention. All the videos are there, and we can all watch the back and forth and I think like Gavin you are retreating to accusations of mischaracterization rather than dealing with the points of contention which are the contradictions that are inherent in the Protestant system.

@@bersules8 🤣🤣🤣 indubitably 🤌🏻

Yes we should love our enemies even our worst enemies

@@jackdaw6359Gavin is by far not our worst enemy

@@andrewscotteames4718 amen to that

@@andrewscotteames4718 people who resist the truth wilfully are not friendly usually and sometimes seeing just how wrong he gets it really makes me wonder. I don't think he is dumb.

Charity always. At the same time, Truth always. It's not either, or, but both.

That's not an argument, merely the pride of Christian team sports. Origen clearly didn't believe in praying to saints and does say so very clearly. The quotes Gavin showed leave no doubt. Even w/ the ones Joe teased out in this video, the other quotes leave no doubt he was against it.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Did you actually watch the video and understand what Joe was saying? Gavin's quotes leave no doubt? Joe's was a solid refutation. Even if you disagree with Joe, there's no way you can still say "there's no doubt" without acknowledging your bias.

​@@freda7961I'm pretty sure this person did not watch the video!

I think you are wrong about that. At least you're not accusing him of lying or being a wolf and he knows it, like many of these comments lately. Gavin has been at this a long time. He's a pastor and pretty educated in church history, so it's not like he just entered this debate and is stunned and swayed by the information on the other side. Take Steve Christie, who was raised a devout Catholic and had no issue w/ his upbringing. No scandal, no trauma. When he started studying the church fathers and read the bible more, he became protestant. He takes part in debates now and has even debated Trent Horn (who is one of the best, said from a more protestant lens).

It seems obvious to me. He is responding like an animal cornered. I think it’s progress…….

Joe didn't prove his case.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 I disagree. Regardless of the issue, whether monepiscopacy, relics or intercessory prayer, Dr Ortlund just disregards too much evidence. I’ll add that first century pagans only prayed to deities (direct prayer)and reviled relics. Therefore HE has more in common with the pagans than early Christians. Honestly he is sounding like Mr mystery religion lately

@@mikelopez8564 I would expect you would disagree. You seem to be claiming that Christians who pray only to God are pagan now and are resembling Mystery Babylon.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 you didn’t watch the video or having a hard time recalling the different types of prayer employed by Christians. Dr Ortlund accused Catholics of incorporating pagan practices. All I am pointing out is HE has more in common with pagan views and not that he got them from pagans. That would be ridiculous. And so is your jump in reason Edit: Mr mystery religion is a reference to Alexander Hislop and his work of utter fiction

As much as I like Gavin, and also think he has it right on how Origen believes prayer should only be offered to God, he does do some pearl clutching. I still don't think Joe's treatment of green shirt Gavin vs. blue shirt Gavin was appropriate or fair. Joe did a recent rebuttal to a video Gavin did a full year ago. Then goes on to make Gavin look like a fool because he doesn't say everything exactly as he did a year ago. It was very court room attack style and not very gracious.

@@saintejeannedarc9460You are just doing it too much, friend. Almost every single comment you are there. And yes, the argument is are wrong: no one indeed agrees with you that Orlund hasn’t read Origin out of context to enforce a Protestant concept assumed on prayer. Because that’s exactly what he does the best. Repetitive insistence won’t change it in people’s minds, I guess. So give us all a break, please.

@@masterchief8179 Oh well. In Gavin's videos, I see far more Catholics in his comments, than I ever see protestants here. You'd obviously prefer to keep this channel a cozy little echo chamber, but Joe calls for actual replies and even disagreements. I see plenty of the same Catholic names consistently in Gavin's or other protestant channel threads, and no one tells them to shut up because no one agrees w/ them.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Hey, brother, don’t pretend to misunderstand me. Just don’t. I’m quite happy that Protestants stick around with us anywhere and maybe they can come to see truth in its genuine expression after all. The problem is not you or some or even many Protestants being here (on anywhere else): it’s you commenting the same thing in ALL posts. So it’s fair to say you are not here to interact as it’s normal to do, like making a couple of comments, dialoguing in one sequence of posts, but to hijack interaction in every single post you can possibly have time to with the same content. I interact a lot with Protestants and EO, usually to correct misunderstandings and grave misconceptions, not to tire them up. As said, Protestants being on Catholic channels is indeed quite good: as said, “you will know truth, and truth will set you free” (Jo 8, 32). God drives you to Him. But that requires hearts are soften enough - not petrified - for the action of the Holy Spirit, so that’s what I pray for ultimately. God bless your paths.

@@masterchief8179 Don't pretend you aren't being controlling and high handed. It's not up to you to decide the number or the content of someone's posts. I see a number of Catholics, at least one I could mention by name that are relentless in most every protestant video. I just don't engage now

All those who are Christian are living saints. When the bible addresses saints, they always meant living people of the congregation of believers. There are many NT examples, here is one: 21Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send you greetings. 22All the saints send you greetings, especially those from the household of Caesar Philippians 4:21,22

I found a lot of errors in the CCC. Who do I report those errors to so they can be corrected?

@@Wgaither1 the elders found a lot of errors in Jesus's teaching as well! Please provide these alleged errors? Best of luck to you! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

​@@Wgaither1do you two know each other? I notice you were one of very few who replied to his comment and added some additional detail about him, his schooling by a 3rd party, if i recall correctly

I believe it is the video entitled "Does the Crucifixion Do Anything?"

Yes, I think it's possible, maybe probably that those in heaven have some awareness of us. If they do, then are certainly rooting for us, and the bible does imply this ("seeing we have so great cloud of witnesses, let us run the race set before us"). I'm sure God would be merciful. If I'm moved w/ mercy at your position as a grieving widow and mother of 3 children, then how much more would our heavenly father be. God bless you and may you comforted. I've went through a terrible grief recently too. My heart truly goes out to you, and I'm really touched by your pain, even sharing it a bit.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 thanks for the response. You're very sweet! My example is only imaginary, however, thankfully. I did lose my father 8 years ago though. My name is Matthew, I'm on my mom's second phone as I await a fix to a sim card issue and need a phone for work and she is kind to let me borrow. I am in spiritual and emotional and mental pain though, for sure. I'm a stubborn sinner and really struggle to get right with God and not let thoughts take me way left field from where truth is and about God. So, pray for me/us I pray for you/y'all's, yis? :-]

That would seem to be a fair assessment of how prayers to saints evolved over time. Maybe some really good Catholic historians would agree w/ this, but most Catholics won't. I see mainly that CAtholics insist that every doctrine and practice that they have now was carried on from apostolic times and every church father from the beginning agreed w/ their doctrines and always has. I don't see this belief in Origen's writings of praying to saints and angels. He says the opposite, yet it is still insisted that he agreed w/ it.

I don't think he did. Joe set it up, but I failed to see him knock it down. In the Origen quotes Joe showed in this video, there is only one that might have given pause, but that is only if the quotes Gavin showed hadn't been so absolutely against praying to anyone other than God and Origen covered that w/ no doubt, speciifying that covered intercession, thanksgiving, supplication and praise. Joe's strongest case was w/ green shirt vs. blue shirt Gavin, but it was rhetoric and uncharitable.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 time is 23:02 look at the screenshot of the recipients of the prayers "intercession" and "thanksgiving"

The Catechism is free to read on the Vatican website...

@@MartinaStC I understand the Catechism is available online. I've tried to doing searches to check on specific topics, but haven't been able to manage searches. It's a bit of a long read to just plow through it.

@@jpc9923 We also draw distinction between different types of prayer. It looks like Origin did too. There can be intercession, thanksgiving, pure praise and worship, personal requests. It's not that we don't recognize this, but I still am not seeing that Origen endorsed praying to departed saints. In the 24:16 quotes, Origen only seems to be talking about obtaining forgiveness to someone who has been wronged. In the next quote is was about personal intercessory prayer, to God though.

@saintejeannedarc9460 If you find it too long to read, perhaps start with the beginning of Fr. Mike Schmidts Catechism in a Year podcast on RU-vid. Each part is short and covers the Truth of our catholic faith.

Joe in this video completely demolishes Gavin's claim that Origen believe we should only pray to the Father. If you reach to the part of this video about "recipients of prayers" you would know what am talking about.

It was one of the more minor points raised, but likely an important one. Christians can sense that Jesus/God is far from humans, esp. because of doctrines of praying to saints and Mary, but not at all be estranged from Jesus. It's a matter of perception, not reality. It is a shame that this perception could set in.

​@@saintejeannedarc9460 That s not what Gavin Said, he clearly asserted that medieval Catholics where estranged from God and felt closer to mary who is tender and more compassionate. Now you re twisting things to vindicate Gavin. The man seriously undermined himself. By the way why do you go by Saint Jeanne D arc? You don't seem to value the saints that much?

@@alexs.5107 The actual quote from Gavin is "many of these texts give the overall impression that God is a bit more distant, a bit more uncertain, and Mary is more tender, near, and approachable." The fact that he says that these texts give an "impression" of God being distant seems pretty clear that Gavin is talking about a perceived, subjective experience (impression) of God's proximity, not an objective estrangement from God.

I don't think that Joe was taking Gavin as saying "they actually WERE distant from God" and getting defensive about that. I think Joe did understand that Gavin's critique was "some Catholic prayers would give the impression to themselves, the ones praying the prayers, that they were estranged and such prayers reflect that they had developed that impression." That is what Joe is responding to. The examples and citations Joe gave in the previous video are to show that medieval Catholic devotional life indicates that in their practice they did not consider it possible for them to only see Christ as distant from them.

Two things: 1. Yes, I want to be clear that I don’t think Gavin is arguing for ONTOLOGICAL estrangement (Catholics in the Middle Ages were literally unable to go directly to God / Christ or something). I’m understanding his position to be AFFECTIVE estrangement (they felt like they couldn’t go directly to God / Christ). Remember, I compared his view to A.G. Dickens’ view that “it was small wonder that they [medieval Catholics] felt more comfortable with the saints than with God, or that they came to regard the Blessed Virgin as a merciful mediatrix for ever seeking to placate the divine wrath of the Son as Judge.” If Gavin disagrees with Dickens, then I’ve misunderstood his argument here. But if he agrees, that’s what I’m meaning by estrangement. (Similarly, if you felt like you couldn’t talk to your wife anymore, and had to talk to her friends to communicate anything to her, I think you’d agree that there was some estrangement there, right? Even if your wife was actually fine the entire time, and it was all in your head?) 2. Throughout the original video, Gavin Greenshirt contrasts these two models: “both-and” (in which love for neighbor, including Mary and the Saints in Heaven, takes nothing from love of God… in fact, I’d go farther and say it increases our love for God) and “zero-sum” (in which these two loves are in apparent tension). He presents (quite fairly) the standard Catholic both-and view: “it's not a zero sum-game. It's not as though if you really love your Christian brother, then you're going to love God less because you only have so much love to give.” He seems to agree with it on paper, but is skeptical in practice: “All of that, I think much of that is valid, especially kind of on paper. But I also think it is absolutely imperative to appreciate how things actually played out. Like, what is the on the ground? What is the on-the-ground consequence of this practice? Is it really functioning like that, the zero-sum game?” He then presents several prayers to which he objects, and says, “See, this is an example of why it's not, you can't do the, well, it's a both-and thing. Think about those words, placate your son. If that's not a both-and because in that prayer, the son is the one needing to be placated by Mary rather than the one who actually has fully placated God already.” So in principle, it’s fine to say that prayers to God and Mary are not zero-sum: that loving one doesn’t mean you love the other less. But Gavin seems to be explicitly saying that while this is true in theory, in practice, it IS zero-sum, not both-and. But I think it’s fair to call the “zero-sum” model “estrangement,” right? The whole point of this view seems (to me) to be that devotion to Mary and the Saints takes us away from intimacy with God. So this also seems to support the view of “estrangement” (although again, not in an ontological sense).

My experience w/ many Catholics I've encountered all my life is that they do feel more estranged from God. Whether they see it as praying to saints and angels, or asking for prayer, they still get the impression that God is more distant and doesn't have time for their individual prayers. I used to encounter this a lot and would encourage them to pray directly to God. They would often answer that God was too busy for their problems. I didn't understand back then why they would say this so often, but now I do.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 As a practicing Catholic who regularly interacts with other practicing Catholics and for whom discussions of our prayer life and relationship with God are not uncommon, it's hard to really know how to respond to this when my experience has been the opposite. Even with non-practicing Catholics in my family, I've never heard them come to the conclusion that an all-powerful, omniscient God can be 'too busy'. It might not be possible for. I've had a few Protestant friends who have, on other topics, said that 'many' or 'most' Catholics have a certain misunderstanding, to which I can only say "Introduce me to these Catholics, I'd like to help them because what you are saying that they believe is incompatible with their own faith" But when I live, work, and pray with plenty of Catholics and never encounter the problem, it's hard to see it as being so widespread.

@@John_Fisher I don't know how widespread it is, and am not even saying it's the norm. It's something I've encountered a fair bit and it doesn't seem like a protestant issue. These have been non practicing Catholics, but I meet lapsed protestant Christians too, that aren't active in their faith and prayer life anymore and they haven't echoed this notion of God being too busy. It's invariably been a Catholic issue, so thought it might be worth mentioning, as it might fit the context of praying to saints, Mary and angels. It certainly could give that impression to some, that God is farther and more distant, and that's why he needs so much help. Mary esp. is made out in some of the Marian prayers to be more merciful and gentle.

I don't blame him Catholic Apologist are super well read and smart.

The whole crux of the argument here was Joe demonstrating the different ways in which the word “prayer” can be used - intercessory, prayer due to God alone, etc. He clearly demonstrated that Origen’s use of the words prayer in the disputed passage was the latter form, and that this has no bearing on intercessory prayer due to Origen’s consistent invocation of intercessory prayer to and for others - all saints - not baring those who are with Christ in heaven.

I don't see that Joe has proven Origen believed in praying to heavenly saints either. The 24:16 quotes of Origen, in the first, it's about obtaining forgiveness from someone not considered a saint. The second quote is about praying for someone like one's son, or oneself, but in both cases they are living people being prayed for. Yet Joe declares this a slam dunk that Origen is endorsing praying to saints or departed people.

​​@@saintejeannedarc9460Combine it with how Origen understand the meaning of "saints" and it's pretty clear he's talking about praying for the saints, either living or dead.

A sit down would be a great idea. Not sure about Joe's schedule, since this online content is I think his job, but Gavin finds it hard to find time for these. It would short step the back and forths, to just be able to respond to each directly. Though these rebuttals are great content too.

Yeah, don't waste your last 2 brain cells because you're too dumb to understand basic logic while denying literal evidence of Origen's position about the intercession of the saints.

Perhaps the quote below will help, in reference to Angels in heaven interceding for us. Origen's words are very Catholic. Those in heaven bear the supplications of men. It's ONLY through the power and love of God that our prayers can be known to them. This is 100% consistent with Rev 5:8 ad 8:3. *For we indeed acknowledge that angels are ministering spirits, . . . and that they ascend, bearing the supplications of men,* to the purest of the heavenly places in the universe, or even to supercelestial regions purer still; *and that they come down from these, conveying to each one, according to his deserts, something enjoined by God to be conferred by them upon those who are to be the recipients of his benefits.* . . . For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels, the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of prayer. . . . *And it is enough to secure that the holy angels of God be propitious to us, and that they do all things on our behalf,* that our disposition of mind towards God should imitate as far as it is within the power of human nature the example of these holy angels, who again follow the example of their God; ... (Contra Celsum, V, 4-5) Says scripture: 18 Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints Eph 6 (cf. Philippians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:1, 5:5; Hebrews 5:7) St John Chrysostom speaking of his deceased Father: _“Thus might you console us; but what of the flock? Would you first promise the oversight and leadership of yourself, a man under whose wings we all would gladly repose, and for whose words we thirst more eagerly than men suffering from thirst for the purest fountain? Secondly, persuade us that the good shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep has not even now left us; but is present, and tends and guides, and knows his own, and is known of his own, and, though bodily invisible, is spiritually recognized, and defends his flock against the wolves, and allows no one to climb over into the fold as a robber and traitor; to pervert and steal away, by the voice of strangers, souls under the fair guidance of the truth. _*_Aye, I am well assured that his intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God,_*_ now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay which obscured it, and holds intercourse naked with the nakedness of the prime and purest Mind; being promoted, if it be not rash to say so, to the rank and confidence of an angel.”_ John Chrysostom, On the Death of his Father, Oration 18:4 (A.D. 374). St Augustine is 100% consistent too. Keep in mind, he was there at Hippo and Carthage when the Bishops met to decide the canon of scripture. You use their New Testament without any changes. _“As to our paying honor to the memory of the martyrs, and the accusation of Faustus, that we worship them instead of idols, I should not care to answer such a charge, were it not for the sake of showing how Faustus, in his desire to cast reproach on us, has overstepped the Manichaean inventions, and has fallen heedlessly into a popular notion found in Pagan poetry, although he is so anxious to be distinguished from the Pagans. For in saying that we have turned the idols into martyrs, be speaks of our worshipping them with similar rites, and appeasing the shades of the departed with wine and food… _*_It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers._*_ But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints’ burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to thee, O Peter! or O Paul! or O Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and. love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here.”_ Augustine, Against Faustus, 20:21 (A.D. 400). Many more quotes. In the end it always gets down to authority. What authority does Gavin have to say his interpretation of scripture is right, and those 1600 years ago above, 1600 years closer to the apostles and Jesus, WRONG? " you have not demonstrated " GAVIN has demonstrated precisely what? That he is RIGHT on the rejection of intercessory prayer to the Saints in heaven? He's arguing from silence against the Church, from which we have repeated quotations speaking to intercessory prayer over and over and over. Just WHO in the Church REJECTED intercessory prayer? Citations please. What he HAS done is misinterpret Origen. Even then, he has a formidable task ahead of refuting all the Fathers were in error of whom we have quotations, St. Chrysostom and St Augustine included.

This is from Chapter 10 on prayer where he talks about the four moods of prayer: "Now request and intercession and thanksgiving, it is not out of place to offer even to men-the two latter, intercession and thanksgiving, not only to saintly men but also to others. But request to saints alone, should some Paul or Peter appear, to benefit us by making us worthy to obtain the authority which has been given to them to forgive sins-with this addition indeed that, even should a man not be a saint and we have wronged him, we are permitted our becoming conscious of our sin against him to make request even of such, that he extend pardon to us who have wronged him." So Joe is making the claim that Origen is basing the four moods of prayer on 1 Timothy 2: 1 to 2 "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people- 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." These are four types of prayer of which prayer is one of them. This prayer, is what Origen calls, Prayer in its full sense, which is owed only to God. But the other kinds of prayers moods, namely petitions (Origen calls them requests), intercessions, and thanksgiving can also be directed towards men. But requests only to holy men. Does this make sense? P.S. I just found this in chapter 9 "In the first Epistle to Timothy the Apostle has employed four terms corresponding to four things in close relation to the subject of devotion and prayer. It will therefore be of service to cite his language and see whether we can satisfactorily determine the strict meaning of each of the four. He says, "I exhort therefore first of all that requests, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men," and so on."

@@danielcarriere1958 Yes, that would make some sense, and it might be extrapolated from that text alone that Origen may have meant the types of prayers to departed saints that Catholics offer freely. It almost gave me pause, except as mentioned, you still have to take that as a whole w/ the quotes Gavin showed. Which I checked yet again, to see if there might be a shadow of equivocation. There isn't though. Origen says firmly that prayer, intercession, supplication and thanksgiving should be offered only to God or Jesus as God. So Joe using the Timothy passages to try and say there are different kinds of prayer, Origen covers that when he negates all prayer except to God. That's all I can see, and I far from glossed over this quickly. I've poured over these quotes, multiple times and I'm sure Gavin is right on this one.

@@danielcarriere1958 Oh and thank you for trying to show me what I may have missed, and doing it gently and charitably. You definitely narrowed in the one part that may have given pause, as mentioned above. We just see pretty different connotations to this and other of Origen's quotes on prayer. God bless.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Here is the full quote that Gavin took. It comes right after the one in my previous post from Chatper 10 and 9. "Yet if we are offer thanksgiving to men who are saints, how much more should we give thanks to Christ, who has under the Father's will conferred so many benefactions upon us? Yes and intercede with Him as did Stephen when he said, "Lord, set not this sin against them." In imitation of the father of the lunatic we shall say, "I request, Lord, have mercy" either on my son, or myself, or as the case may be. But if we accept prayer in its full meaning, we may not ever pray to any begotten being, not even to Christ himself, but only to the God and Father of All to whom our Savior both prayed himself, as we have already instanced, and teaches us to pray." But you say this above: " Origen says firmly that prayer, intercession, supplication and thanksgiving should be offered only to God or Jesus as God. So Joe using the Timothy passages to try and say there are different kinds of prayer, Origen covers that when he negates all prayer except to God. " Notice he only says "But if we accept prayer in its full meaning" He does not by this include the other three moods. He is focusing on prayer alone directed to God from Timothy's list of four moods. So Origen does not say that intercessions, requests, and thanksgiving must be offered to God alone. Just prayer.

Unless you are saying this quote negates the other three moods .... lets take a closer look: "Yet if we are offer thanksgiving to men who are saints, how much more should we give thanks to Christ, who has under the Father's will conferred so many benefactions upon us?" Right, we can offer thanksgiving to men, but we must, on account of Christ, given even more thanksgiving to God who gave us so many blessings. OK. That is true. But that does not mean we are never to offer thanksgiving to Christ or to others. Just that Christ is owed thanksgiving to a much greater degree. "Yes and intercede with Him as did Stephen when he said, "Lord, set not this sin against them."" Here we intercede with God on behalf of sinners .... Sinners who are in the process of killing us, just like they are killing Stephen. "In imitation of the father of the lunatic we shall say, "I request, Lord, have mercy" either on my son, or myself, or as the case may be." Supplications to God. For sure. We pray to God on behalf of those who are sick, the demon possessed, the mentally ill. But that doesn't mean we can't beg other people to help our sick kids. Sometimes God works through doctors, right? "But if we accept prayer in its full meaning, we may not ever pray to any begotten being, not even to Christ himself, but only to the God and Father of All to whom our Savior both prayed himself, as we have already instanced, and teaches us to pray."" I think this means something qualitatively different than the other three that is owed to God alone. The other three we can give ask from others, but prayer in this full sense, only to God. But again, this does not negate the other three or make them suitable to God alone. Not like prayer.

You've got Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane ("he went away a third time praying the same way"), the persistent widow (will quote below, Luke 18: 1-8), and Psalm 136 repeating praise 26 times in 26 verses. Here's the parable of the widow as a model for prayer- 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’ 4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’” 6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” Reading that again, it makes me wonder if Jesus is making a connection between this type of incessant crying out and faith. Seems to be implying that one who calls out day and night to God has the stronger faith. But, yeah, I also hope Joe answers too. :-) And forgive me if the point is just that Mary only needs to hear a request from us and pray for it once. Strength in numbers, yo!

@carolynmcgrory1729 Yes, it's primarily an attack against the Rosary and other extremely repetitive prayers. Not so much praying multiple times over time, but multiple times back-to-back.

@@ryanb4780 As the Rosary is simultaneously and just as importantly meditation, we need and want more than a few seconds worth of said meditation. So that's one aspect I see. His point is really just kind of rhetorical, if it's good to ask Mary to pray for us it's perfectly okay to ask her again. I think it shows an understanding of how badly we need prayer and mercy.

Jesus was condemning the kind of repetitive babbling common in evangelical denominations.

But... still an immensely influential theological think of the third century

Nope

I understand the critique that "estrange" might have been too strong a word, and clearly it was, to some ears... although I did try to present Gavin's actual words to prevent any misunderstanding of his position. But if your kids went from feeling they could go to you, to feeling like they needed to go to your wife bc you seemed less tender, what word would you use to describe that felt loss of intimacy? (I'm genuinely asking, bc I don't see any of those critiquing the word "estrange" offering a better word. I get the critique, but I'm coming up short on a replacement).

@@JosephHeschmeyer I am not estranged from my kids. They recognize that dad is "the law" but they also know that I love them. If they get an idea in their head that they aren't going to come to me for things and instead always "go to mom" then we have a problem with either my "sternness" or their conception of me. I don't think we need to summarize what Gavin was saying into one word. We can just let it stand and discuss the merits.

Fair enough, even using an overly emotional example I got you. But it still is really a minor issue that gets too much focus and (deliberately?) shadows the real issue on Gavin’s accusations, I guess. That’s what we need to check. First of all, the usage of one singular word being unnecessary (with which I agree) must go both ways: if a word is not needed to qualify Gavin’s position, since we can let his explanations in the video stand (and I agree), at the same time the accusation of misrepresentation due to the use of that word, even assuming it could have been avoided in the first place, shouldn’t stand, since we could have had Joe’s explanations on his video concerning Gavin’s stand instead. As I said, it’s still just a minor point after all that Protestants are (disingenuously or not) falling for. On what REALLY matter on the merits is that Gavin REALLY claimed 1) praying to the saints/ angels was not really a good practice that went over the hills during the Middle Ages, but a practice that was congenitally bad and became, during the Medieval times, “egregious” (his own words); and Gavin also said 2) that praying to the saints/ angels is of pagan origin or a pagan contamination, two accusative affirmations (unchecked and unsupported by evidence) that he knew to be disrespectful and severely hostile to anyone non-Protestant. So it’s genuine that people get bothered to be misrepresented; I simply don’t feel it fits this particular case in favor of Gavin. Not at all. That play of “I’m being misrepresented” while at the same time PRACTICALLY accusing Joe of lying (he didn’t use the specific words for it but he sort of implied it) and INDEED accusing Catholic doctrine of paganism (ideological frame that is not different from Jack Chick’s tracts,), it feels like Gavin’s conduct is always to be defended by his goons, at the same time he gets the prize for the “oh, he is so charitable” argument. Honestly, I was once a “Catholic fan” of him due to the soft-voiced way he dialogued with us in the midst of the rabid anti-Catholic Evangelicalism that defines American mentality (I’m Brazilian). But when I saw how he twisted (grossly, in my opinion) texts out or their internal contexts, how he twisted texts out of their external (authorship) context and how his videos on purgatory showed it for me with clarity, while William Albrecht showed it in a massive series of videos, it changed it all for me. Then he elusively dismissed responding to it (accusing William’s “tone”). How he got away with that is beyond me. At last, I agree with Joe on the real merits of the issue discussed. For me, with all due respect, Gavin (and other Protestants that came to defend him) took Origen out of his context due to a clear previous commitment to the Protestant notion of prayer. That’s intellectually unsustainable but I understand where people are coming from. And I respect the fact that we need to continually dialogue.

@@pigetstuck seems kind of weird to expect Joe to comment on the relationship you have with your kids. How do we know they might feel estranged from you.

@@MrPeach1 I was making an illustration.

Because before the resurrection there was no access to Heaven. You couldn't pray to those in the Bosom of Abraham.

@@vanessa.jasmine Where after the resurrection do the apostles teach that dead Christians can hear your prayers? Where do they teach they can help you?

@@Justas399Can you not do this today please? Thank you.

@@Justas399where in the NT does it say to pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

@@TheCatholicPiper In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full. - John 16:23-24

Saints in Heaven are neither sinful nor dead. They are perfected and spotless and fully alive before the very Face of God, at every moment and for all the rest of eternity.

@carolynmcgrory1729 in the spirit, not flesh, like all born again. you don't know who are born again.

You are confusing necromancy with praying to the dead. 1. In Luke 16 Jesus tells the story of the rich man asking (praying to) Abraham (who is long dead) to relieve his suffering and to send Lazarus to earth to tell his brothers to repent. 2. In 1 Samuel 28 Saul prays to the dead prophet, Samuel. 3. In Jeremiah 15:1 the Bible casually assumes that great prophets like Moses and Samuel would be praying for those on earth after they died. 4. In 2 Timothy 1: 16-18 Paul prays for the dead. 5. In Acts 9: 36-41 Peter prays to the dead Tabitha. 6. In John 11: 41-43 Jesus prays for the dead Lazarus and then to him.

@ST-ov8cm the richman was deadin hell. and saul was condemned for it. Jeremiah 15:1 no prayer to the dead. New International Version 15 Then the Lord said to me: “Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out to this people. Send them away from my presence! Let them go! paul did not pray to the dead. 2 Timothy 1:16-18 New International Version 16 May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus. peter did not pray to the dead. prayer for is not prayer u. resurrection vs resusitatiom. only Jesus is resurrected.

Are the inhabitants of "the city of the Living God...angels...spirits of the just made perfect(Hebrews 12), in your view, "sinful dead individuals"?