I believe in God but I'm not satisfied with the way today's denominations approach the Scripture...

...

Actually the only bootlicker was this guy

Did you even read my post? I never said bible study is bad, you mong. I never said reading the bible is wrong. I said personal interpretation is hazardous.

What is personal interpretation if not reading the Bible unaided?

Personal interpretation would be interpreting it, actually. Not just reading it.

I feel you, op. It feels like I can't trust any institution and should probably interpret any verse the opposite most modern Christians do. I've been lied to and misled by too many people claiming to be an authority.

Fpbp. Besides OP, you're already "trusting in others" by reading versions of the Bible that were translated by individual(s) with their own personal biases. Unless you become fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, etc., then you're already reading the Bible the way the Catholic Church/Martin Luther/Robert Alter/etc. wants you to interpret it.

Obviously when I say reading it yourself I mean you get to think about it too

What's your educational background? You might not agree with the prevailing orthodoxies but they have armies of scholars behind their conclusions. Also if you seriously think you have it right and 99% of Christians have it wrong then you have bigger responsibilities in your future like evangelizing the entire planet of Christians unless you conveniently interpret it in a way that absolves you of that responsibility.

Is "making your own biblical interpretation" pride?

>Implies salvation was scarcer before your new denomination school of thought came around

Attached: mw84996.jpg (241x325, 37.8K)

Depends, as long as you ACTUALLY think it's logical, it's not a sin.

Thinking about it =/= interpreting. It should be compared with the beliefs of the early church. That way we don't get anime-tier fanfictions. Think of it this way: what are the chances that every member of the Church was completely and totally wrong on dogma for 1500 years, until several brand new interpretations randomly popped up, most of which tend to disagree with each other? I mean, we have denominations now that all ignore the Inspired word of God in the NT written by Paul, because his way of thinking is "old-fashioned" today.
Dogma is dogma for a reason; without it the body of Christ falls into complete chaos. Prime example: literally every church with female clergy permits everything except obedience to God.

You could say the same when asked about someone that doesn't know something is sinful. Sure you're not knowingly rejecting the creator, but it still taints your soul.

OP here.

I'm a literature major.

I'm not sure what it's like in other Orthodox countries but people here are frequently encouraged to worship & pray to the saints through icons and bones, which I feel is wrong.

Did Bible interpretation not arise from people's need to understand the scripture? Why not interpret it yourself instead of relying on others' thinking and pretend you got anything meaningful out of it?

What if I did my best to not be biased and/or taught myself an appropriate language in which to read the Bible?

I'm not proud. I merely want to achieve a better understanding of God.

The early church had the interpretation of the Apostles. You are not so special that you can just ignore the authority of those who knew Christ personally.

Acts 8:30-31

You need the guidance (note I said "guidance" and not "supreme authority") of those who were the disciples of Christ, and those who were the disciples of those disciples, and so on. The successors of the apostles today are the bishops.

I assume you have looked into the scriptural reasons for the veneration of saints, and that is why you are dissatisfied and looking into interpreting the scriptures on your own. Why, exactly, do you find this interpretation of the scriptures to be wrong? How else would you interpret it, and how is your intepretation reflected in Christ's teachings, in the practices of the Church throughout history, in the practices of the Church today?

The Bible isn't a Quran, some sort of God-dictated revelation that fell from the sky and that is the basis of our religion. The Bible is a library of texts written by the people of God, testifying to its experience of God, for the sake of the people of God. It is written by the faithful, for the faithful, testifying to the faith. Reading it outside of this intended use will not be helpful.

You say "today's denominations" but then talk about an Eastern Orthodox background so I have no idea if you mean Protestants/Catholics/EO or just different thoughts in EO.

There is nothing wrong with studying the Bible on your own, although I fear you have already predisposed yourself to what you are going to get out of the Bible rather than actually accepting what it says.

What is faith?

They are venerating, not worshiping, but you'd be right if they were actually being idolaters.

This reminds me of arguments about having a Christmas tree. I'm not worshiping the tree, and trying to tell me I can't have one because I'm not following the external appearance of the law isn't Christianity, it's Judaism!

Problems presented still stand either way. You saw problems(in quotation marks) with one denomination and you're immediately jumping ship to nothingness.

I should have been a bit clearer. I was born and raised in Eastern Orthodoxy and I have already outlined some of my quarrels with its theology. Another movement that I was particularly interested in for a long period of time was Calvinism, but I the doctrine of TULIP to be somewhat contradictory and kind of forced into the narrative. I have only dabbled in Catholicism but I'm mostly unwilling to submit myself to the Roman Catholic Church because of its questionable history.
I have since been bouncing from denomination to denomination in my research, agreeing with one more than another but never feeling 100% confident.
I'll be honest with you, I'm confused and I want to put an end to that.
I am in the process of figuring that out, but I feel that it's not nearly as anchored in the teachings of man, acquaintance of Christ or otherwise, as we are nowadays led to believe.

I find*

Today's Christmas is a pagan rite dressed in Christian clothing. I can't agree with that analogy.

On faith, please read the second part of this post (the part translated from the "Living God" catechism):
reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/aeq95l/orthodox_catechisms_on_what_we_need_to_be_saved/
And see the first part of this post, about faith: reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/aes8t1/orthodox_catechism_pt_2_what_is_faith_what_is/
Although you said you were raised Orthodox so you likely already know this. But then what I want to ask is what exactly you need to "figure out" here. How is the Church's teaching incomplete/erroneous?

Then there is of course the Book of Habakkuk.

I'm not sure what you mean, especially as the New Testament was written by acquaintances of Christ and their disciples.

This board is for Nicene Trinitarians, aka real Christians. Jehovah’s Witness conspiracy theories are a bannable offense. December 25th was sacred to Roman Christians centuries before it became pagan.

I don't know why you call me a Jehovah's witness, but I don't mind being banned if that is the wish of those dissatisfied with my suppositions. I reject hatred without hating back.

You need your ass beat kid.

Attached: bb37726aa432c655c2195602ad865e5cf9d17a40fc8f49ea2b5e435c703a480d.jpg (1024x576, 65.28K)

You'd have to learn not just one appropriate language, but several to read the Bible in its original written languages. I think your best bet would be to use multiple English translations rather than just one and recognize the flaws of each. I assume you're already familiar with the Early Church and its Fathers?
As a lifelong Protestant who's just started getting into the Catholic faith, I thought that way as well. It's strange to hear that come from a cradle Orthodox though… even during my first visit to a Church, when I saw the priest or an altar boy bow before the altar or an icon, I never thought of it as them idolizing the objects themselves, but simply showing respect for what they represent.

Oh, no, they do. Priests frequently come to people's homes asking them to kiss icons, there are times when people crawl around churches or underneath icons on their knees, times when people trample each other in the street over the chance to hold a bone et cetera. Orthodox apologists will tell you that it's not idolatry, and they will instead say that material objects and strange rituals are actually supposed to be people's way of connecting with God. This is what I was taught in religion class and this is what you'll hear the priests say, but they can never justify their own position.

If this is all you could gather out of my posts I pity you. I'll be praying for you if you wish.

And how is any of this worship?

I'll also add - is your problem with the idea that God can give His grace through material means, or that we can have communion with God through material means?

The scripture itself instructs how we should read it. Specifically, Jesus himself, when he pointed to his disciples that the scriptures all point to him.

I don't care what denomination you are. If we aren't doing this, then we're setting ourselves above Jesus. Not a position I'd envy.

Although, tbh, it's only the Orthodox who keep it real with Christology. But I'm trying to be nice. ;)

That's strange… must be an Orthodox thing, as I've never seen or heard of the Catholics around here (who are very involved in the community) acting that way.

If putting yourself in such a mental state in which you allow yourself to be governed by the material objects' supposed significance instead of trusting in the grace of God alone is not false worship, I don't know what is.

Both, but mostly the latter.

I've seen worse, but here is an example
youtu.be/Wu7nh1uhnk4

Here's a better video (Title reads "Nicula pilgrimage, old ladies on their knees around the church)
youtu.be/i3jWa6BrEP0

So you mean that you think this is "talisman" or "magical" thinking and therefore idolatry? I can see what you mean. Although the only example that could be like this is the crowd zeal surrounding relics… I have never encountered any Orthodox who thought or even acted like they show reverence to a pretty picture of a saint, and not that it is to the saint himself that they show reverence but use the icon as a focal point.
However I agree that public zeal surrounding relics is not acceptable. I've made several pilgrimages to venerate icons with other Orthodox and it was ordered, full of reverence, and surrounded by prayers asking the saint for his or her intercession.

As for the idea that God cannot work through matter… Read the book of Exodus, where communion with God is constantly realized through material means (even the Sabbath is done as mystical communion with God's creative work and His rest). The prophets often used material to convey God's grace. The Ark of the Covenant was material. Most importantly perhaps, Jesus Christ incarnated in material flesh, ate material food, died on a material cross, etc. And of course, there is Acts 19:11-12.

To clarify again what I'm asking - do you reject the holy mysteries completely, with the justification that God does not use matter to convey His grace? Also, -why- do you believe God does not use matter to convey His grace? Is it that material things are inherently evil?

Protestants lost all reference and meaning to the difference between reverence and worship. So they think anything showing simple reverence is equivalent to worship.

I blame it on their lack or negation of sacramental life. Leaving their churches to mostly focus on reverence of God (and therefore leaving no room for any other type of mundane reverence). They don't have a strong sacramental tradition which makes it very clear what's appropriate to God and what's appropriate to saints. To the Orthodox mind, the difference is extremely clear (and Catholic as well I suppose).

That sounds like gnosticism. It is said in Genesis that when God made the world, He saw that it was good, so that is not the case. I feel like people assign a hypermaterial meaning to the Bible and try to view what could be parables or misunderstandings in light of the world we inhabit. That is to say that I feel like the Bible in general is a more spiritual book of whom we, as people who did not live in that time, have no material knowledge except maybe second-hand accounts. I feel like things warrant a more in-depth reading and interpretation just in case there is more to it than meets the eye.

Ah, I see what you mean… the people in your first video do come off as militant, and as for those women crawling around on their knees in public… that's indecent. I'm not sure where you're from (I'm assuming Eastern Europe), but are there other Christian denominations present in your country?

Romania which is a >90% Orthodox with a Catholic & Hungarian Reformed minority. To my knowledge only a handful of Christian denominations are counted in the census to begin with.

Country* There's something wrong with me today. In retrospect, I may return with an interpretation to show people what I mean to say since I seem to be quite bad at getting my point across.

Ah, but that doesn't answer my question.

The scriptures are both material and spiritual. They are both literal and symbolic, or rather, I should say, they are sacramental.

But we have been reading the Bible and contemplating its scriptures for centuries and centuries. The Divine Liturgy is 90% citations of the scriptures. The saints have written a lot about the spiritual meaning of the scriptures. Did you read the Ladder of Divine Ascent (well, you probably did, since we do every Lent) or the Life of Moses, for example?

If God didn't like matter, he wouldn't have come in the form of the Son.

Pride is a sin, and this reeks of it. You most definitely do hate, so denying it thus means that you're shutting your eyes to your own iniquity and using rhetoric rather than treating with us on a level playing field.

For a modern person you are seriously indebted intellectually to Greek Sophists. I suggest you repent, but at any rate, I cannot into a discussion about how much holier thou art than Orthodox icon kissers and people who buy Christmas trees so I'm out of here.

Attached: Columbo.jpg (600x453, 59.29K)

Aren't both videos that he posted from Orthodox sources? Neither is a Catholic Mass.

But did He really? Was it really a material incarnation of God nailed to a physical cross to the cries of a mortal crowd that the Scriptures meant to show? Take a moment to ponder the meaning of the Christ. "Christ" stands for a saviour, a redeemer, and to Christen is to save and redeem. To be crucified is to be bound, to be static, and achored in the material, for he who is nailed to a piece of wood is unmoving. What if the crucifixion of a redeemer is not literal, but an analogy to an all-encompassing salvation being immortalized in the worldly for us to rejoice in? The bearer of our sins, the truth and life, brought to the earthly by the nails of our wickedness to show that the goodness of God transcends the will of men and that through the very intent of killing good, one makes it stronger and puts it out there for others to see.
That is to say, God is all and God is in all.
The man Jesus may have not even existed, but the good of the Christ was put into perspective through the narrative of a son's death.

That's a shame. Have you noticed if the Catholics act in a similar manner? I'm from the United States, and even though my Church conducts a Novus Ordo Mass, we behave in a much more similar manner to the Tridentine Mass than the ridiculous behavior shown in the Novus Ordo Mass in the attached video. There's no dancing, waving of arms, crawling on your knees, shouting, etc.. If Catholics in your country behave as the Orthodox do, it could be a cultural thing, and I do mean that with all due respect.

Forgot to attach the video I'm talking about, deleted my original post, and 8ch's spam filter kept me from replying sooner. Sorry for the confusion.

If you mean what I think you mean by holy mysteries (that is, the unexplainable), I just don't take them literally. Would an immaterial God in whose image we are supposedly made reveal his truth in any way but his own?

Yes. It's not -everything-, the physical, historical scene that we see has a spiritual meaning (and in the case of the crucifixion, this meaning is huge - notably, the cross is often called the tree of Life in Orthodox theology). But we cannot discard the literal meaning in favor of the spiritual one, that was the error of the theological school of Alexandria which gave us Origen and Dioscorus, the heretics. And we cannot discard the spiritual meaning in favor of the literal one, that was the error of the school of Antioch, which gave us Nestorius, the heretic.

? "Christ", "Messiah" in Hebrew, means "anointed".

Congratulation, that's not Christianity in the slightest. The apostles testified to the literal life, death, and resurrection of a man called Jesus, anointed by God as the king of Israel, and, as St. Paul says, if the resurrection did not literally happen then our faith is for nothing and we are idiots.
Why do you think that you understand the scriptures better than the community that wrote them, recognized them as inspired, used them liturgically, intepreted them, and continues to do so today? Are you more wise than centuries upon centuries of Christians?
You seem to be arguing that the gospels are really midrashes, and this was lost on the Christians pretty fast. Is that correct?

To an extent, with the excuse that it's circular logic to argue that a literary work is literal because its own characters testified so. A frame story is a common literary device.

Attached: dcd95436a835e8d1a732b7dcdbdbf7107d927d3d2417ed17bd78f60c7aeb033b.jpg (500x403, 28.07K)

I had hoped this discussion would be fruitful, but it's ok, I don't mind.

It's not that the characters in the story testify so. It's that other people, who know the authors of this story, testify so. And the disciples of the authors also testify so. And nothing indicates at all that the story is not meant to be read literally, in any of the early Church's behavior or writings.
Of course, it's not because the authors intended to communicate truth that they did. This is the argument of a few scholars today - that the apostles were victims of delusion to some degree or another, pointing to modern cult behavior and claims of public miracles (like Our Lady of Fatima) as modern examples.
But the idea that the gospels were written as midrashes is a very very very fringe position, that I would almost call a conspiracy theory. Even the most "negative" scholarly interpretation I can think of (that Luke-Acts is written as propaganda to convert people) does not think that the texts weren't intended to be read literally by the author.

How quickly would you wager my suppositions will be shot down if I were to write them down and expand on them? Do you think I would have been burnt, had it been the 11th century?

You come here, and when people give you advice or attempt to correct your idiotic beliefs you cling to your preconceived notions like a Jew clings to a coin. What's more, you go so far as to claim the Crucifixion of Our Lord didn't "really" happen – as if you were some sort of stupid Muslim – and feign the part of the victim when your blasphemy is challenged.

Throughout this thread you have shrugged off every other person who has tried to reason with you, which, as my first post mentioned, marks you as a stupid kid with his head up his ass. It's that, or you're some kind of New Age noodle dick coming here at the behest of Satan to nip the heels of the faithful.

And now you come out with foolish comments like >>757934, again playing the part of some persecuted victim. It is nothing but your own hubris you are bound to.

Attached: a6ff6ae3572c2026a9287b61efd836be06d74ae7070f660ed35d422f9d598781.png (1280x720, 376.75K)

What do you mean?
Are you shifting the discussion to execution of heretics in the middle-ages? The Orthodox didn't do that, except when the Cathars got really annoying, and even then it didn't become a sustained period of persecuting them (as it was in the West). The Byzantines have always preferred imprisonment, mutilation, or exile.

But either way I'm not interested in shifting the topic of discussion. This is your own thread, please stay on-topic.

It actually is on-topic, since the reinterpretation of a monumental work the likes of the Bible takes more than thinking about a verse every now and again as you need to sort through your thoughts which would imply at least writing them.

You seem unnecessarily angry. If your idea of a civilized discussion is hurling insults and accusations of demonic possession attached to an ironic anime reaction image then you're wasting your breath.

I enjoyed everybody else's comments, though, and I feel like I got what I meant to get out of this thread, hence it can be archived. Thank you for your time.

It actually is on-topic, since the reinterpretation of a monumental work the likes of the Bible takes more than thinking about a verse every now and again as you need to sort through your thoughts which would imply at least writing them.
You're being asked questions or given counter-arguments and you're not responding to them.

I feel like I responded, to what I thought is worth responding to, adequately enough.

There is reason to contend that the gospels have midrash elements, even though we could dispense with the Hebrew words nobody understands so don't quote me on that, but that's not what I'm saying; I'm drawing a distinction from my legal training called mens rea and actus reus.

In other words in order to have idolatry, you must have regard for the "mental element." I may have a tree in my house between the 20th and 28th or roundabouts of December, and that tree may be from a pagan tradition. But my mind is not engaged in worshiping the tree. It is a tradition, which is culturally accepted, but devoid of religious significance.

Let's imagine that we both own the exact same car in the exact same colour, and we both go shopping, coincidentally at the same time. If I wander out into the car park, and you've left your door unlocked, and I get in and try to drive away as if it were my own car and you catch me having all the appearance of stealing your car. I'm still not a criminal for having done any of these things. I just mistook your car for my car.

Same with Christmas trees and whether they are idolatry; I can put a tree wherever I like, but I'm not worshiping it.

St Paul, if you want scripture to prove it agrees; look at 1 Corinthians 8:5-13

Heretics, not brainlets got burnt

This

Yes, he came in the flesh. The Gospels even explicitly made a point of saying it, since the proto-Gnostics had already reared their silly heads by the end of the first century.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh Sin is anything that goes against God’s will and His laws. To commit sin is to transgress or disobey these laws. The lust to sin dwells in human nature. In other words, it is contaminated and motivated by the sinful tendencies that dwell in all people as a result of the fall into sin and disobedience in the garden of Eden. This… More
is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.” 1 John 4:1-3

Without Christ coming in the flesh, the world is hopeless. For then, there is no resurrection and no redemption from sin. The only people this is acceptable to are, again, Gnostics.. who think redemption is through their own noggins.

Don't you see a problem in claiming fringe things such as this?
Quick question, where do you believe biblical interpretation comes form? The holy spirit?

Attached: Even_In_Your_Filename_FOE.png (443x376, 25.98K)

What the shit. None of the gobely-gook you just said made any sense. This is what you sound like:
So did He say what was He said in the Bible even? Did he even condemn idolatry?

Really all this boils down to is that you are a secularist who dislikes it when people with real faith behave in a way that contradicts what you think is "proper" or "well-mannered." There, I solved it for you, you're not a Christian, you are an Anglophile, who is so worldly that people who are inflamed by something otherworldly are off-putting.

As someone 1/2 Scottish and 1/2 English, do yourself a favour and be a philhellene at least. The Greeks are way better than us in literally every regard.

Attached: Sage.jpg (600x600, 25.39K)

Apologies. I messed up that scripture quote. Something went wrong in what I copy and pasted. The first bit is what I meant to quote, from John's epistle:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

You need to study John 1 and then never read anything but John 1 until you realize how far off track you just went.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

No, it would be wise.

It's the duty of a Christian to understand scripture themselves, not let others seek God for them and then just cross their fingers and hope it's correct.

Do you think that it's intelligence which reveals the word of God to you? It's not, it's the Spirit of God. Seek and ye shall find.

crazy talk

So did the scribes and pharisees

Is accepting the opinion of others laziness?

If God wanted to keep something hidden? 100%

The early church was erased by the church of Rome. We know for a fact that the early church and the apostles considered the book of Enoch to be scripture because they quoted it as such. The church of Rome chose, after thousands of years of acceptance, to reject the book of Enoch. That alone gives reason to suspect the canonization of the bible in general

Not according to Jesus you don't. According to Jesus the Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth. The catholic church is an apostate church and always has been. The fact that the habit of raping children is so deeply ingrained should alert you to that, and if that doesn't the reality that the false prophet of the book of revelations in your current pope should.

AKA bible idolaters

You would have definitely been laughed at. the Literary criticism taught in college currently is stupid. You're taught to take something simple and complicate it with sophistry. In our current post modern system of education, we aren't taught to seek truth, we are taught to obscure it, and that's what you're doing. You're essentially trying to reconcile Christianity with post modern atheism to make it acceptable in a modern academic context, something your ENG200 teacher would give you an attaboy for suggesting in class. While it's good to seek God and come to your own understanding, you aren't really seeking God, you're engaging in trained behavior, trying to reduce Christian ideas and scripture to the forms of thought you've been trained to display.

This is true, but this also why I made a point of saying Christ needs to be the one rule by which we interpret. Christ himself showed in the scriptures that they point to him. We need to view the scriptures Christologically, like this. If this counts as private interpretation, may God bless us all. But anything else is trying to push him to the side and setting themselves above the Son of God.

What are you if not a nicene trinitarian

Then you've already missed out on 50% of what the scriptures even offer you then. The Old Testament is full of theophanies of the Son. Viewing, say, Moses and the Burning
Bush makes no sense as a unitarian. "The Angel of the Lord" speaks in the First Person as God. Not only that, but this idea existed before Christians. Look at the Aramaic Targums. It's the earliest translation/paraphrase outside the Greek. Do you know what these pre-Christian Jews translated the Angel of the Lord as:

The Word.

The Apostle John wasn't simply pulling the Word idea out of his hat (nor was it originally a Hellenic concept). It was always rooted in Jewish belief.

I think we're mixed up.. I'm asking the other guy what he calls himself since he criticized trinitarianism. I take it you're a trinitarian also, is that right?

Yes.. sorry for the confusion.

Well, I hope that little bit above was interesting anyways. I was awestruck when I discovered the Targums.

^This poster said literally nothing wrong

(OP) >Would it be heresy to sit down and interpret it myself verse by verse instead of trusting in others? Do you mean like when the entire church post St.Origen accepted the Alexandrian method of interpretation rather than gathering together for a unity of an alleged "apostolic" tradition?
Books are meant to be understood by their audiences-use contextual exegesis, even if you have to rely on the definitions of the original languages

And who received the Holy Spirit? Jesus constantly says in the gospel of John that He will send the Paraclete. But when does this happen? Spoiler alert:
The Apostles received the Holy Spirit, with the authority to bind and loose.
In the Acts of the Apostles they receive the seal of the Holy Spirit in its fullness (Acts 2) but even then, it is through their laying on of hands (Confirmation) that they give this same Spirit to others. It doesn't come out of nowhere.

I would agree, but I am also not a Catholic, you know.

Apostate is a silly word for the largest Christian branch on earth. They are not actually Catholic/Universal and instead enamored with their own Roman culture and leadership.. but hardly Apostate. That kind of word is reserved for the likes of Gnostics or something off the wall like Marcion. Maybe the modern equivalent would be syncretic New-Agers with Christian trappings. While "Heretics" are those with usually one awful idea worthy of excommunication. And a schismatic is mostly about governance.

See, here's another thing that Tradition is useful for: Appropriate labels :P

Lol imagine thinking your interpretation is better than Bible Scholars and Theologians. The best thing to do is to follow the interpretation of the Church Fathers because they were the disciples of the Apostles, and to follow the interpretation of what majority of Christendom thought throughout time because Jesus promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church

Sola scriptura is a heresy. Sola scriptura hurts the cohesion of a Christian community by undermining it with individualism. It creates doubts amongst the faithful by introducing novelties. The Reformation undermined the Christian community by causing seemingly endless divisions.

Out of curiosity, what scriptural reasons are there for the veneration of saints?

>Joshua 5:13-15 When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood before him with his drawn sword in his hand; and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” [14] And he said, “No; but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshiped [shachah], and said to him, “What does my lord bid his servant?” [15] And the commander of the LORD’s army said to Joshua, “Put off your shoes from your feet; for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.

This Hebrew word shachah (Strong’s word #7812) is translated 99 times in the King James Version (according to Young’s Concordance) as “worship” in the Old Testament, including passages that refer to exclusive worship of God

>Exodus 34:14 (for you shall worship [shachah] no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

Now it makes you wonder. If God didn't want us to venerate the saints and angels, why did Joshua venerate one of God's angel-commanders and than proceed to conquer Canaan? If it was a sin like the prots love to meme why would God bless Joshua and the Israelites with the land of Israel?

Attached: 7b94a205a91c139036b28eb669914cbf.jpg (692x1398, 193.85K)

It's not so much veneration one should focus on what people are doing, but simply acknowledging saints in heaven, and asking for intercession. A nod, if you will, that the kingdom of God and "church" is far larger than what we see on earth, for no one is dead is in the presence of the Lord. We ask our ministers and family and friends to pray for us. How much more valuable is the help of a saint, if it were possible? Are we allowed to talk to heavenly beings?

"Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" -Psalm 103:20

This was a Psalm acknowledging angels, but after Jesus' new covenant with men, there's more than angels in heaven. In Revelation we see images of men delivering prayers to God:

"the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" -Rev. 5:8

And lastly, this simple line here:

"The prayer of a righteous man availeth much." -James 5:16

Do righteous men in heaven count? That passage from Revelation would appear so.

Are all of these solid proofs of the doctrine of prayer to saints? No. It's more of an inference/implicit thing.

Kek, I like how you avoid the 3 arguments presented in that post and make a shaky remark.

God saves the righteous because of their righteousness, He does not save those wicked surrounding them simply because they are in the same group:
Ezekiel 14:12-20

However, the righteous can pray for the intercession of the wicked:
Genesis 18:23-32
James 5:16
Acts 7:60

The prayers of the righteous can help not only those who are alive but also those who are dead:
2 Maccabees 12:44-46

Similarly, those who are dead, if they are in the hand of God, can pray for us:

(cont)

Revelation 5:8
Revelation 8:3

The Church is both on earth, for those who are living in the flesh (Philippians 1:22), and in Heaven, for those who are alive in Christ (Phillipaisn 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8). As such we continue to pray for one another even if some of us have died in the flesh, because we are still in the same Church and animated by the same Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, invoking the saints when praying to God is already rooted in the Old Testament. 1 Chronicles 29:18:
The saints in Heaven do care about what happens on earth and they pray to God. Revelation 6:9-11:
Jeremiah 15:1:
Peter reassured us that he would take care of us even after his death. 2 Peter 1:13-15:

Finally, prayer for the dead is scriptural and was already a traditional practice in 2nd Temple Judaism. That is because the sins of the dead can be forgiven, but only if we pray for them, as they cannot help themselves anymore.
Deuteronomy 26:14
Baruch 3:4-5
Matthew 12:32

Doesn't Revelation 19:10 show that you shouldn't?

Thank you for this