29 June 2005

The Woman of Revelation 12

Who is the woman of Revelation 12?

The commentary is finally up! Hopefully the format will work on your computer. You can access the Word document here.

I'd write an introduction, but my time is limited. Go ahead and click on the link. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read it and leaving your thoughts on the chapter. *Hint, hint...*

29 Comments:

Blogger David Ketter said...

Can you define soon? It's a week later than you thought, brother. :P

Lookin' forward to it...

July 02, 2005 7:09 AM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Well, I must admit, it's very well done....nice use of original language and good logic in your argument, for the most part.

Your analysis of the character of this "wonder" was very thorough and I agree - until you begin to identify it as the Virgin Mary. That is really the only thing that I disagree with.

If you will, I will explain some of my view (where it diverges from your's). I believe that the women is only representative of Israel redeemed. It is well-known that Jesus is an Israelite, the TRUE son of Israel - the promised Seed. Your identification of the man-child, is, in my opinion, correct then.

You may wonder, then, how I explain the sun, moon, and stars in this case. Well, it's quite simple - this is Israel in her God-given glory. - Israel redeemed. Her tribes are the crown and the righteousness of God consumes her and the lesser righteousness of the nations is under her feet.

As for her escape into the wilderness....Revelation is concerned with the end of days, not the present or the past. Israel will flee into the wilderness, as foretold by the prophets. You are well-aware that many Biblical scholars believe that she shall turn to Petra - a heavenly-protected city in the End Times. Redeemed Israel shall go there and be protected from the wiles of the Beast and he shall not be able to take them.

I think that's about all. It's really kinda sad that you understand most, if not all of my view, but I'm just learning your new one...maybe because you were once in the same boat. ;)

July 02, 2005 5:33 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Thank you!

As you said, we agree on quite a bit here. We agree on the identity of the man-child, Jesus. We agree that Israel is, at least, represented here. I believe that the sun, moon, and stars are very closely related to Israel. Though Christ is the promised Seed of Eve and O.T. Israel. He does not come out of the converted Israel, but out of the old Israel, the fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

Now I'm not saying that Redeemed Israel, which becomes part of the Church, is not represented here. But as I look to the other symbols, I see some that clearly represent the Virgin Mary. And also, as Mary is so closely connected to both the Church and Israel, daughter of Israel and first to believe, I see her in the woman. As for the time, the birth of the man-child Christ was over 2,000 years ago. As for the other time, that is, the clock... I have to sign off. God bless.

July 06, 2005 3:27 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Though Christ is the promised Seed of Eve and O.T. Israel. He does not come out of the converted Israel, but out of the old Israel, the fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

In the New Testament, there is a verse that says that Jesus was "the firstborn among many brethren." This would mean that Jesus was the firstborn of the Fulfilled Israel.

which becomes part of the Church

I think we might disagree on this as well. From Romans (chapters) 9-11, we learn that it is the Church that forms part of the redeemed Israel, not the other way around. Paul says that the Gentiles were grafted into the redeemed Israel.

daughter of Israel

Which, you know, qualified her no more than any other Israelite woman...

and first to believe

First to believe? What about Adam and Eve? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The prophets? They all believed in Promised One - as did many Israelites before the birth of Mary. Did Mary truly recognize that her child was to be the Messiah before his birth, or even at it? Another issue, I know, but it is a question to consider.

July 06, 2005 4:58 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Sorry about that, my friend. I had my time goggles restricted to the future and was thinking about the end time Israel.

I must go home and read Romans 9-11 tonight. I am familiar with the 'grafted in' phrase. Whatever this means, it is still true that they are now Christians, and part of the church.

How many others of the daughters of Israel gave birth to the man-child and are now body and soul in the third heaven? By first to believe, I meant first under the new covenant. Looking at Luke 1, it is obvious that she held the angel's words to be true. Gabriel tells her she will be the mother of the Son of God, Elizabeth calls her the Mother of my Lord, and in verse 45 says "Blessed is she who believed." She was the first to recognize the Child as the Son of God.

July 06, 2005 6:04 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

I stand corrected on Mary being the first to believe under the New Covenant... (or at least among the first - the New Covenant didn't take effect until the Resurrection...and Mary Magdelene was the first to see Him and believe - Salome was also there...)

July 07, 2005 8:49 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

oops, forgot some things in my last comment...sorry about that...

I do take issue with the doctrine that deals with the assumption of Mary. The only people that we KNOW from the Scriptures went body and soul into heaven are Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus. The Scriptures are silent when it comes to Mary. I'll stick to Sola Scriptura on this one.

July 07, 2005 8:51 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

I do take issue with the doctrine that deals with the assumption of Mary.

Ooooh! :D I'm looking forward to that discussion. That'll come later.

Hmm... word of mouth isn't working so well. Perhaps because I have told only two people... yes, hmmm. Time to bring some traffic here.

July 08, 2005 2:30 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

You probably get quite a bit of traffic from my site...but then, most of my traffic doesn't even comment on MY blog...

July 08, 2005 7:07 PM  
Anonymous Jessica said...

Hey Guys!

I enjoy reading y'alls discussions. :) As soon as things slow down for me, I will jump in on them...or at least try, lol.

In Christ,
Jessica

July 12, 2005 11:15 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Hi Jess!

We'll be looking forward to that! See you around, when you get the chance. :)

Also, I am working on another paper called The Body and the Blood. It will be up soon, probably uploaded from sunny Florida.

July 12, 2005 2:38 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Oooh boy...you're just lovin' this debating, aren't you? Be that as it is...lookin' forward to it, but I'd much rather talk about the things we do agree on (yeah, I know, you're wondering who I am and what I did with the real DJ right?)

July 12, 2005 7:24 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

lol. Obsessed, even.

I'll get something up here that we can agree on. We've been doing some of that over at your place, I'm sure we can bring it over here.

July 13, 2005 4:19 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Coolio. :D

July 13, 2005 6:01 PM  
Anonymous CatholicMom said...

Enjoyed reading your paper, Jon. Of course, you know I agree with you. One thing that does baffle me, from the opposing side, is the reluctance to give Mary her due. I think we can all agree that she is literally the Mother of God. What is then so intimidating to give her the due that she deserves? I often wonder how Jesus views all the disdain that is shown to His mom, the woman that He loves above all other women. Does He not show her respect, honor and love? And wouldn't He expect the same from us, who are His brothers and sisters, especially after giving her to us from the cross? Well...I guess I got on my soapbox, lol.
Well done, Jon

July 14, 2005 12:09 AM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

One thing that does baffle me, from the opposing side, is the reluctance to give Mary her due.

I (yes, I know who you are talking about :P ) am not reluctant to honor Mary's life, her memory, etc. She was granted an extraordinary and unique experience that should not be forgotten.

I think we can all agree that she is literally the Mother of God.

Oh yes, Theotokos...It is important to note she is not the mother of the Triune God...of God the Son, yes. It is also rather complicated in the fact that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God..." Jesus also said, "Before Abraham, I AM" (not my emphasis). So, really, Jesus existed BEFORE His mother...kinda different in the situation there.

Does He not show her respect, honor and love?

As any good son does... ;) However, we have precious little Word from the Scriptures concerning it - the wedding at Cana and his Crucifixion being the only references that evidence it.

And wouldn't He expect the same from us, who are His brothers and sisters, especially after giving her to us from the cross?

I take issue with this idea mainly because He gave her into JOHN's care. Now, taking into account the Catholic position on Peter, there would have been much more of a notion for this is PETER had been the one that was to care for her. In any case, Jesus, as the legal protector of His mother (Joseph, in any case, being dead), gave John (his [young] cousin) the legal rights to protect her. It wasn't symbolic.

July 15, 2005 10:08 PM  
Anonymous CatholicMom said...

I (yes, I know who you are talking about :P )

I grant that you are on the opposing side but I did say that in a general sense. There aren't any Protestants that I know who don't share this reluctance. Your response still does not answer my bafflement. Mary is treated as if she has little significance and there is no attempt to show her any honor.

So, really, Jesus existed BEFORE His mother...kinda different in the situation there.

Of course He existed before Mary did--He is God-eternal. But how does this negate the fact that she is still His Mom? Or if it doesn't negate it-how does it diminish it? She carried Him in her womb for nine months, she bore Him, she nursed Him, she changed His diapers--she was/is His mother in every sense. That is the miracle of the Incarnation. Just because He existed before her does not mean that she should be pushed aside as unimportant or of no consequence.

It wasn't symbolic.

This is strictly your opinion. But let's just say that you are right. Does that alter the fact that we are His brothers and sisters? Even Protestants acknowledge that belief. So based on that, wouldn't He expect us to honor His mom as He does? Why should only one Son honor the mother? Shouldn't every child? And don't you think that it actually gives Him joy to see the proper respect and honor due to His mom? I know how good it makes me feel for people to say nice things to me about my mom and to be kind and considerate to her. I don't think that Jesus is any different.

And just to set the record straight-I really am baffled. I try to understand but it just isn't logical to me. I am not trying to be offensive, I REALLY don't understand.

July 18, 2005 10:57 AM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

There aren't any Protestants that I know who don't share this reluctance.

Ironically, I've never considered myself a Protestant...always an Evangelical (as I explained to Jess, there is a difference).

Just because He existed before her does not mean that she should be pushed aside as unimportant or of no consequence.

I agree...In regards to the Incarnation, however, I've always seen the greater glory in God's actions in it. I think it's not a difference of opinion, just in our focus.

So based on that, wouldn't He expect us to honor His mom as He does?

From the Scriptures, how did He honor her? I mean, sure he followed the Law, I understand that part of it, but are there any specific ways we know He honored her? To remember her life, honor her memory, that is one thing...I just don't see giving her, much less any others, glory and praise that belongs to God alone. This, I realize, is a difference that will never change.

I am not trying to be offensive, I REALLY don't understand.

You are not being offensive at all (just so you know)...and I can understand your questioning, but, until recently, I didn't understand your view at all...I guess it is just a matter of looking at where the belief is derived from (in my case, the insistence that God alone is worthy of veneration).

God bless!

July 18, 2005 4:25 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

I'm not meaning to jump in on anybody's discussions, well, I guess I am.

Something on the title of "Mother of God." The Church has never claimed that she is Mother of the Triune God. We acknowledge that Jesus was begotten of the Father before ages. Mary did, however, give Him His human nature. The same council (of Ephesus) that declared Mary the Theotokos also said that Jesus' two natures are in unseparable union. Mary did held God and all His godliness in her womb. It was by God's grace that those of low degree be exalted. As Luther said, we "have crowded all her glory into a single phrase, 'the Mother of God'."

We are to give her praise and honor. You might call it worship... but we do not worship Mary or the saints. We give them honor and venerate them. If you know the difference, you might think this is too much. Look at the Hebrew word for worship. For example, in Exodus 18:7 when Moses kisses his father-in-law and "makes obeisance." How else is this translated? In the KJV, which I guess you would prefer, worship- 99, bow/bow down- 49, reverence- 5. Sometimes used for God, sometimes used for people. The difference lies in the type and extent.

I also don't understand the rejection of Mary as our Mother. If we are the brothers of Christ, and if the Church is the Body of Christ, how can we not be the children of Mary? The Jewish people even called Abraham their father. Of course he was in the genealogical sense, but also the spiritual patriarch. How can that not diminish God's position as Father, if you say calling Mary our mother does?

I have a lot of support for Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Eve, Queen of Heaven... all titles/names that would result in honor being due to her. If you would like to see some of it. Right now I'm probably making typos left and right as I am exhausted. :P

July 18, 2005 7:22 PM  
Anonymous CatholicMom said...

I beg your pardon for referring to you as Protestant--something else that baffles me I guess ;). Also thank you for your understanding that I really am perplexed by your viewpoint.
So here we go again.

sure he followed the Law, I understand that part of it, but are there any specific ways we know He honored her?

I would tread lightly for fear of insulting Christ Himself. He was Perfect. To imply that He would only follow the law in regards to His mother is insulting. He would have been the ideal and perfect Son. In every way. He would have honored and loved and obeyed her, not just to follow the law, but because He meant it. It would not have been a false, I'm only doing this because I must....It would have been a true, deep and sincere love and honor and respect and obedience. To say otherwise, is in my opinion, to slur the name of Christ. Just off the top of my head, the one example that I can think of is the wedding at Cana. If this doesn't show deference to Mary then I don't know what does. He was old enough to not obey her and yet He does. If He would do as she requested here on earth, might He not do the same in heaven? (Oh, but that is a whole other issue).

glory and praise that belongs to God alone.

Please note that I never used the terms glory and praise. I agree that that belongs to God alone. I used the terms respect and honor, which is all that we as Catholics do. We give her the respect and honor that she is due as the Mother of God. And I truly believe that in doing so we give pleasure to Jesus, who loves His mother most dearly.

Glad you jumped in Jon. You are so much more technical than I am. I know my faith well but have trouble putting it in the "smart person" terms like you do. And after all, this is your blog :)

July 20, 2005 12:57 AM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

I'm not meaning to jump in on anybody's discussions, well, I guess I am.

Anytime, brother. :)

We give them honor and venerate them.

Okay, here's what I don't understand - men are lower than angels in the Created Order ("You made him a little lower than the angels") and every time in Scriptures an angel appears to men and men attempt to "give them honor," they consistently rebuke them and say that honor belongs to God alone. (Note: there are some exceptions, but it is generally agreed that THE angel of the Lord is none other than Jesus Himself acting as the messenger of God.)

In the KJV, which I guess you would prefer

I don't know why you'd assume that, but that's okay...NIV is my usual reference...

If we are the brothers of Christ, and if the Church is the Body of Christ, how can we not be the children of Mary?

It's really quite simple...we are not naturally-born Children. We are not born into the family of God. I believe it is in 1 Corinthians that Paul says "You are not your own; you were bought at a price." All through the Scriptures, we see that we were once slaves to sin and then redeemed and given unto God. 1 John 3 does say that we are the Children of God - but through the adoption of the Father. What the Father does has no impact on our relationship with Mary because, well, she's human and He isn't...there is no union between them (aside from the fact that she, too, is part of the Body of Christ).

I have a lot of support for Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Eve, Queen of Heaven... all titles/names that would result in honor being due to her.

Honestly, I see no point to such titles...a name is no more than a name, unless it be God's, which is THE Name...different though...

I am exhausted

I hope it wasn't all that work you put into that post, Jon. :)

To imply that He would only follow the law in regards to His mother is insulting.

If that was the impression I gave when I wrote that, sorry. Jesus Himself said "I have...come to fulfill it [the Law]" I have no doubt that Jesus was the perfect son...what I was asking was if there was any especially reverent treatment of Mary written in the Scriptures. Obedience is one thing, but did He lavish her with titles? Did He tell his disciples that she was to be prayed to, etc.? And if so, where in the Scriptures is that?

Please note that I'm not trying to discredit you in any way, however, I am trying to understand.

God bless!

July 20, 2005 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is Jon. I can't find the log in fields here, so I'm anonymous.

lol. Well thanks, though my writing can get quite boring.

D.J., take a look at the role of the Queen Mother in the O.T. especially Bathsheba, I think. I saw a very interesting article on her role in the king's life.

Also, I will post something on here that we can agree on, lol. If I can get some research done on this newest HP book, well... that will certainly do. I also need to do some research on this nominee to SCOTUS. Very interesting.

July 20, 2005 8:10 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

[E]very time in Scriptures an angel appears to men and men attempt to "give them honor," they consistently rebuke them and say that honor belongs to God alone.

Genesis 18:2, 1 Samuel 24:8, Genesis 37:9-10? Honor does not belong to God alone, prostrating yourself does not belong to God alone... worship belongs to God alone.

NIV is my usual reference... *chuckles* Sorry. I get in trouble when I assume. For me, especially in studying the text, I prefer cross checking the various literal translations, all against the Hebrew or Greek.

What the Father does has no impact on our relationship with Mary because, well, she's human and He isn't...
It's true that we are Mary's 'descendants' as you might call it. Nobody is claiming that. And like you said, we are co-heirs with Christ and are adopted by the Father. All of this is possible because of Christ. Now, how did Christ take on the flesh and come to this world? Through the Virgin Mary. God did not need to come in this manner, yet He did. He took on a body through Mary, and in the Hypostatic union He has His two natures in ONE person. What He took from Mary is all there. What He has as God is all there. You can't separate the two natures, and I find it hard to believe that we can be His 'adopted' brothers, yet by only one nature.

A name is no more than a name
Come on, man. The name denotes the position or trait. That's why Jesus has God saves, Christ, Adam, Alpha & Omega, King of Kings. Names/positions. Likewise, Mary has the New Ark, the New Eve, Queen of Heaven, because she is the Ark of the New Covenant, she is the New Eve, and she is Queen of Heaven. The Ark of the Covenant was given extreme honor and reverence in the OT. Mary also deserves honor as Ark of the New Covenant. Can you tell me why the Ark was given so much honor?

I hope it wasn't all that work you put into that post, Jon. :) Not hardly. :P It was probably sailing.

July 22, 2005 1:45 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

You can't separate the two natures, and I find it hard to believe that we can be His 'adopted' brothers, yet by only one nature.

Christ is noted as "the firstborn among many brothers" in the New Testament. Until the physical resurrection and the glorification of our physical bodies, we are united with Him only in Spirit.

Can you tell me why the Ark was given so much honor?

The Ark was given honor because God, in person, rested upon it. The Ark held the Word of God, and the testimony of His power. I can appreciate the analogy, but I can see it as no more than that.

Here's where the claim that Mary is the New Eve falls short...If Christ, her son, is the Second Adam (and we know from Hebrews that He is so indeed), how can His mother be the New Eve. Wouldn't His Bride - the Church, be the New Eve?

July 22, 2005 3:04 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

We are united with Him only in Spirit.
I'm not saying we're fleshly related to Him, if that's what you're thinking. I'm saying that as children of God, brothers of Christ, we are His spiritual brothers in all senses. Mary being His mother, we being His brothers... Jesus being the firstborn of Mary, Jesus being the firstborn of many brothers... logic to me.

Even Luther agreed that she is the Mother of Christians. "Mary is the mother of Jesus and the mother of us all. If Christ is ours, we must be where he is, and where he is, we must be also, and all that he has must be ours, and his mother therefore also is ours." The fact that she is considered the New Eve supports her universal motherhood. Eve is the mother of mankind, Mary the mother of the redeemed.

On the ark... good! The ark was honored because God resided there. Christ, who is God, was carried by Mary. The three things in the ark according to Hebrews 9:4. Manna, Aaron's rod, and the words of God inscribed on the stone tablets. So we have the bread, the sign of Aaron's priesthood, and the words of God. In Mary we have Christ, the true bread of heaven, the new high priest, and THE Word. The Ark could not be touched by any man, and only the High Priest could look upon it in the Holy of Holies. (Connection with perpetual virginity.)

Now, Mary can be the New Eve because of the role she plays in the redemption story. Eve's disobedience by words of an angel (Satan) brought death and sin to the world. Mary's obedience to the angel Gabriel's words brought life and freedom from sin (Jesus) into the world.

July 22, 2005 5:31 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Eve's disobedience...

Just as a note on that, it was not through Eve that sin and death came into the world, but through Adam (this according to the Scriptures): "Through one man, sin entered the world..."

As for your other things...well, it's all well and good as far as analogies go, but the fact remains, Mary physically died...and the Scriptures prohibit prayers to those who are yet dead. We can pray to Jesus because (1) He is divine and (2) He is alive.

July 23, 2005 10:05 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Okay, when thinking about Mary and her role in Christianity, you have to remember that she always points us to Christ. Eve was the one that listened to Satan, she in turn gave Adam the fruit to eat. Mary's obedience resulted in Christ's birth. That's because God wanted it that way, I know He could've chosen another way. He didn't though, and He chose a woman to give Him the nature of man. In this way, God brought the history of sin full circle, all players involved. Eve to Adam, Mary to Jesus.

I'm glad you recognize the analogies, and hope you see why they're there. Please tell me where the Scriptures prohibit this practice. Without taking the assumption into consideration, at least Mary is spiritually in heaven. The case is the same with all the other 'dead' saints, canonized or not. Scripture clearly shows that those in heaven can hear our prayers. In Revelation 5:8, those in heaven offer up the prayers like sweet odors. What the Bible (and the Church) do prohibit is the conjuring up of spirits, or necromancy. This constitutes calling up a spirit to speak or give information. NOT what the intercession of saints is all about. Deut. 18 (I think) condemns necromancy, and instead points the Israelites to God's prophets for information. What of Elijah and Moses appearing at the transfiguration? People are quick to condemn Marian apparitions, but don't have a problem with two 'dead' guys appearing with Jesus. God allows those in heaven to hear our prayers, He has even allowed some to appear on Earth. The saints do intercede on our behalf.

July 23, 2005 9:06 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

you have to remember that she always points us to Christ

Really? I recall that it is the moving of God the Father through the Holy Spirit that points us to Christ. To suggest that Mary is active in this process is to say that she is divine...not somewhere you want to go, I'm sure.

Without taking the assumption into consideration, at least Mary is spiritually in heaven. The case is the same with all the other 'dead' saints, canonized or not.

It's not a matter of whether they are spiritually alive...they are physically dead, or asleep in New Testament terms...they have not yet risen.

In Revelation 5:8, those in heaven offer up the prayers like sweet odors.

The vision indicates that God receives the prayers of the living as incense...this is also to be found in the Nevi'im (the writings of the Prophets).

What of Elijah and Moses appearing at the transfiguration?

It must be noted that Elijah did not die a physical death. He was taken up to heaven and awaits the time when he shall be a witness once more. It is only when the Antichrist kills him at the end of his final ministry that he will die ("For it is appointed unto man to die but once, and after to face judgment"). It was not Elijah's spirit that appeared with Christ, but Elijah himself in his own physical form.

As for Moses, scholars are divided. Some say that he died indeed in Moab and was literally buried on Mt. Nebo. Others say that the word for "buried" indicates that God took, or "hid" him from view...thus a similar experience to Elijah's...I'm more inclined to believe this.

You are also aware that Enoch, Seventh from Adam, one of the first prophets, was the first to escape death, by the grace of God. In my opinion, he will share the ministry of Elijah at the end of days.

God allows those in heaven to hear our prayers,

Could you point out Scriptural support for this?

The saints do intercede on our behalf.

They just might (not denying the possibility), but intercession does not require a request for it. We do not have to pray for their intercession (if they do, in fact, intercede for us) - that is done without saying (as the saying goes...).

July 24, 2005 4:46 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

I recall that it is the moving of God the Father through the Holy Spirit that points us to Christ.

St. John the Baptist pointed to Christ, all Christians in their good deeds point to Christ. (Mt 5:16) What I was saying, is that Mary is always dependent on her Son, and all things accorded to her are for the glory of God.

It's not a matter of whether they are spiritually alive...

Why is that? The angels certainly do not have bodies and they can hear/see us. (Mt 18:10) Those that are in heaven have what is most important to their existence, an immortal soul. We don't claim their dead unglorified bodies hear anything from the grave.

The vision indicates that God receives the prayers of the living as incense...

Let's look at the verse. These living creatures and elders are holding bowls of incense. They are holding up these bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints, in an offering to God. You can find a very good comparison in Psalm 141:2. Those in heaven play an active role, interceding on our behalf.

On the transfiguration: I see your point. I don't know why I brought it up, but as a side remark.

Could you point out Scriptural support for [the ability of saints to hear our prayers]

Revelation 5:8 I already gave. The angels spoken of in Matthew 18:10 also can hear or see us.

Intercession does not require a request for it

That's what many people say when they ask why we should pray to God at all. God is omniscient, yet we still pray to Him, verbally or not. Those in heaven are not omniscient, but are given the ability to intercede on our behalf. Since we are encouraged to pray for each other here on earth, why would the saints that see the face of God not pray for us? There is nothing wrong with asking them to do this, as long as we aren't conjuring them up, asking them to come back body and soul. James 5:16 says, "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

July 24, 2005 6:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home