A question for protestants

Wryetui

IC XC NIKA
Dec 15, 2014
1,320
255
26
The Carpathian Garden
✟15,670.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I'll do the best that I can, Wryetui. Remember that I have the deepest respect for you, and I am saying a silent prayer that you not be offended by anything I might say in answer to your questions.



My acceptance of the Divinity of Jesus Christ has nothing whatsoever to do with any council. It is what I see written in my Bible:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
...
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

There are many other scriptures that prove His Divinity, but this will do for now.

OTOH, I see nothing in the NT that has anything to do with the use of Icons. Now, I, personally, see nothing really wrong with, say, having a cross on your wall, or having a ceramic angel, as long as you don't worship these things. I, myself, have a huge collection of ceramic angels, for instance.




I have no problem with the term "Theotokos". I believe the literal translation is "God-bearer"?
However, she is not Divne.
Blessed among women? Yes, indeed...but still a woman, just like me.

I don't see why your church insists on the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible indicates that there were more children. Your church explains that by making Joseph an older man with kids from a former marriage, which, while it is not impossible, the Bible doesn't say that. Or perhaps they were some other "kinsmen". Again, not impossible...but not what the Bible says.
And while it is true that Joseph fades from view after the incident at the Temple, that doesn't necessarily mean that he died right after that. For all we know he was still alive when Jesus began His ministry.
As far as those siblings speaking to their elder brother, remember that they thought He'd lost a marble or two, and were quite concerned about Him. Notice, however, that they didn't go barging in to the place where He was, but waited quietly without.

The Bible does seem to indicate that Mary and Joseph had a normal married life after Jesus was born:

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

There is no reason to think that he withheld himself from her once the Holy Child had been born.
It would not make her "dirty" or any less blessed if we knew that she had had normal sexual relations with her husband, and had other children by him.
I respect your point of view and I am not offensed at all, I understand that you, and most of americans (I'm not offending anyone here) grew up in a protestant background with protestant ideas and views, the importance of icons, or the Theotokos, or the Synods or everything else never reached the USA, if an american would enter an orthodox church they would see an entirely different christianity and an entirely different world. In our archaic orthodox world, the deep, deep, theological meanings behind the Theotokos, or the icons are extremely important, and everything is in deep connection with the Scripture, with the Holy Tradition and with the Church, with the Fathers of the Church and with the Saints, not because they did the dogmas, but because they preserved them. I can talk with you about this subject on private if you please, but if you like to see what is it all behind this "Theotokos" thingy, and why for us, both orthodox and catholics, the perpetual virginity of Mary is so important you can read this: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/veneration_mary.aspx
 
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I prefer to stick with the interpretation of the Church from the beginning and the Saints, the interpretation of the Church didn't change so even if I respect your opinion (altough I find it insulting to the Most Holy Theotokos), here is what I believe and what the Church believes:

First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another "brother." Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another "brothers" in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.

Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four "brothers of the Lord" mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: "Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother."

Notice, the "James" of whom Paul was speaking was both a "brother of the Lord" and an "apostle." There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a "son of Zebedee." He most likely would not be the "James" referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph.

Paul more likely is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this "James" was not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. Though this is a possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are referred to as "apostles" in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak. When Paul wrote about going "up to Jerusalem" to see Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he "should be running or had run in vain." It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about "apostles" (proper), or "the twelve."

The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus," are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary." They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.


That regarging Mary, now regarding Holy Icons and their supposed "idolatry":

The scriptures tell us that Jesus Christ is the image or “form” of God (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ): “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15). While the Father and Spirit are both formless and invisible (1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27; 1 John 4:20), the ὑπόστασις or person of the Son is revealed to us in the God-Man Jesus Christ: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (John 1:18).

God “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), as the prophetic Emmanuel indicates (Matt. 1:23). When we look at Christ, we see the Father, and Jesus Christ is the “exact counterpart of [the Father’s] person” (Heb. 1:3). This word translated by the EOB as “counterpart” is χαρακτὴρ, implying something like an image stamped into a wax seal. Through the Incarnation, God made himself known to us as a circumscribed, touchable, breathing person—a person that was born, grew old, ate and drank, suffered, was buried, and resurrected after three days.

So when Calvin and his followers claim that depicting God in any way detracts from his glory, we must only point to Christ, for it is in the person of Jesus Christ (most importantly, at least) that we see the face of God. When we praise, worship, and magnify Jesus Christ, we are offering praise, worship, and honor to the all-holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Similarly, when we pay honor to the image of the Son of God in icons, we are paying honor to the prototype—to Jesus Christ himself. And when we honor the Saints, we are honoring the God whose uncreated light shines through their halos. The uncreated light of the shimmering gold leaf as it reflects the light of our oil lamps and candles—symbolic of the faithfulness of God shining forth in their saintly and Christ-like lives (which is, incidentally, why Orthodox Christians pay such close attention to the lives of the Saints).

Calvin’s arguments on this point seemingly presuppose that the Incarnation never happened; that the dispensation of the new covenant has yet to take place, and that there has been no Emmanuel or “God with us,” a God we can hear, see with our own eyes, and touch (1 John 1:1). These sorts of arguments are fitting for a religion such as Islam, but they are not the Christian Gospel; the Gospel of God made flesh, dwelling among us for our salvation.

Also missing from this presentation is any mention of the times when God commands his people to relate to him through an intermediary such as the bronze serpent, a relic that even miraculously healed people of their infirmities (Num. 21:9).

The flaw in Calvin’s viewpoint rests not only in Christology, but also in anthropology (as the two are inextricably linked). Mankind is created “according to the image of God,” as in the Greek translation of Genesis—κατʼ εἰκόνα θεοῦ (Gen. 1:27). And that image of God is Christ. Being created in the image of Christ, human beings are oriented towards a teleological purpose of transformation according to God’s likeness in him. This is our destiny, and why we are created: To become like Christ; to become like God. To be anything less is to be less than fully human, as Christ is the true and final Adam (1 Cor. 15:45).

Regarding "praying to dead people", we do not pray to dead people.
You ask in what sense do we pray for the souls of the departed. Why, in the same sense that we pray for the souls of those with us because Christ is Risen, trampling down death by death. The barrier between living and dead has been eliminated due to the Resurrection of Christ. Those who are departed are just as much with us and just as much a part of the Church as those who we see living on this earth. There is no longer any separation. And so not only do we pray for them, but they also pray for us; in the same way that you might ask your friends to pray for you and in turn pray for them so also do we pray for each other without concern for the separation of death.

When we pray for either the living or the dead we use the same prayer: "Lord have mercy", to express our desires. We do not know what to pray for even for those with whom we live because only God knows what is best for our salvation, and so we say "Lord have mercy". Likewise we do not know the needs and concerns of the departed, but God does and trusting in His knowledge we say, "Lord have mercy"

We do know that, like all of us, those who have departed require forgiveness of sins, and that they look for a "place of rest" in the bosom of Christ and so we make this petition, that God will provide these things, but again as for specifics about how this should happen we simply conclude with "Lord have mercy".

Some of the confusion might occur in that most Protestant confessions teach that the judgment after death determines the eternal state of the soul. Not so, according to the Tradition and teaching of the Orthodox Faith. The particular judgment immediately after death only determines the state and "residence" of the soul in the spiritual world and that judgment is based on who our spiritual "friends" are. Do we have more converse with angels or demons? Do we devote ourselves more to the saints or to sinners? Are we attached to the world or to the Kingdom of God? Do we act like Satan or Christ? Whatever we are like, there we are placed in the spiritual world. And the demons are diligent in attempting to demonstrate that we are tied to them and not to Christ and so any and every unconfessed sin, no matter how seemingly small and insignificant is brought out by them as accusations against us and the angels on the other hand counter this accusation by a description of our righteous deeds which indicate our change of heart and life. But do not confuse this particular judgment and temporary disposition with the eternal disposition of the soul to be determined at the Great Judgment. Then, the soul being reunited with the body thanks to the general resurrection, each person will be judged by God Who sees within either the spark of grace or none and those who have that spark will be brought into the Kingdom of God and those who do not will be cast into outer darkness - finally and eternally. So you see that when we pray for the departed, we do so knowing that the final judgment has not yet occurred and while we don't know what the exact needs of the departed are, we can simply lift them up to God calling out for His mercy.

Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13:55

Brothers in this scripture is a reference to Jesus' brothers, from His mother Mary, as the context clearly shows.

Mary His "physical" mother, and James, Joses, Simon, and Judas His "physical" brothers.


While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.
Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You."
But He answered and said to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"
And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers!
For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:46-50


Jesus disciples were with Him.

His "physical" mother and physical "brothers" were standing outside.

Jesus corrected the one, by stretching out His hand to His disciples and saying...here is my mother and brothers.


JLB


 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,314
10,595
Georgia
✟909,847.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Ex 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

I just looked back at Ex 20, and a commentary. As far as I can tell the real issue is worshipping other gods, not images.

Ok so you see no reference in vs 4-5 to images. Might you also see no reference to bowing down to or serving the beings that they supposedly represent -- as well?

The prohibition of images maintained the character of God. No physical image can do him justice.

so then...
Ex 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

So you say this is just a reference to "an image of the God of the bible"?? That restriction is clearly seen there as well?? in the text??


But if we accept that veneration of the saints is legitimate

Why would we do that?


==========================================================


Neither Jews nor Christians have ever understood vs 4 to be a general prohibition of painting or sculpture of people.


Indeed. I don't know of any problem in Moses' day were people were "bowing down" before and "serving" -- paint.

But quite a bit of paganism of Moses' day was in engaged in bowing down before objects and praying to the beings that they represented - and "serving them" -- the beings that they represented.



If a Christian honors saints, and we really accept that they are simply honoring a set of faithful human beings, then I don't see that this passage is relevant.

No matter that it describes the very thing that is not to be done - bowing down before - and serving those entities represented by the images?

notice that this was never done in the Temple in the case of carved images of Angels or painting on the curtains.



In that case they aren't bowing down and serving them.

Certainly a case could be made that they do not bow before those images ... or kiss the toes until the toes begin to wear away -- or say prayers where the pledge service and devotion to those non-god beings.

At least in some cases.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

Wryetui

IC XC NIKA
Dec 15, 2014
1,320
255
26
The Carpathian Garden
✟15,670.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
For the same reason that the Donatist church wasn't, and that the mormon church isn't...nor "Jehovah's Witnesses"
Comparing those churches with the Orthodox Church show the ignorance you have about this subject. Those "churches appeared" on the 19th and 20th century, the Orthodox Church appeared on the year 33AD at the very Pentecost and has a tradition of over 2000 years.
 
Upvote 0

RhaegarTargaryen

Active Member
May 27, 2015
367
52
40
✟784.00
Faith
Lutheran
Comparing those churches with the Orthodox Church show the ignorance you have about this subject. Those "churches appeared" on the 19th and 20th century, the Orthodox Church appeared on the year 33AD at the very Pentecost

....according to the EO-churches themselves, just as the RCC claims this about itself. The claim alone has no weight. The comparison is valid.
 
Upvote 0

Wryetui

IC XC NIKA
Dec 15, 2014
1,320
255
26
The Carpathian Garden
✟15,670.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
....according to the EO-churches themselves, just as the RCC claims this about itself. The claim alone has no weight. The comparison is valid.
The comparison is valid just for a person that has a little knowledge and culture concerning this subject, the Orthodox Church was founded by God at the Pentecost, how can you compare that to the mormons or JW?

If you want to stop being an ignorant about this subject and to get culturalized, you can learn by yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Orthodox_Church
 
Upvote 0

RhaegarTargaryen

Active Member
May 27, 2015
367
52
40
✟784.00
Faith
Lutheran
The comparison is valid just for a person that has a little knowledge and culture concerning this subject, the Orthodox Church was founded by God at the Pentecost,

No, that's what the EO churches claim. And again: Simply claiming it does not make it true. I have quite a bit of knowledge. I also have a low tolerance for bovine manure.
 
Upvote 0

Wryetui

IC XC NIKA
Dec 15, 2014
1,320
255
26
The Carpathian Garden
✟15,670.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
No, that's what the EO churches claim. And again: Simply claiming it does not make it true. I have quite a bit of knowledge. I also have a low tolerance for bovine manure.
Perhaps you could inform yourself and get culturalized into why do they claim that, you could also read the article I showed to you at least if you are not willing to read a book by yourself. I showed you why do we claim that and why it is true, it's not my problem if you and your "quite a bit of knowledge" don't want to read.

"Do not correct a fool, or he will hate you; correct a wise man and he will appreciate you."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RhaegarTargaryen

Active Member
May 27, 2015
367
52
40
✟784.00
Faith
Lutheran
"Do not correct a fool, or he will hate you; correct a wise man and he will appreciate you."

This is basically why I have usually stopped engaging with EOs and RCCs. Once I found out that the EO churches claim that Jesus had long hair because the depictions of Him shows Him with long hair, they lost all claim to credibility.
 
Upvote 0

Wryetui

IC XC NIKA
Dec 15, 2014
1,320
255
26
The Carpathian Garden
✟15,670.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
This is basically why I have usually stopped engaging with EOs and RCCs. Once I found out that the EO churches claim that Jesus had long hair because the depictions of Him shows Him with long hair, they lost all claim to credibility.
Neither I claimed that either no one I knew claimed that, your point is irrelevant to the question you raised, people's claims do not make the truth, but history does, and the originality and truth of the Orthodox Church doesn't rely on people's saying of Christ's hair.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,308.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I think it’s hard to maintain that Catholics (I don’t know EO practice well enough to comment) are worshipping saints and Mary. Prayers to Mary are generally, “Mary pray for us.” No one confuses them with God. That doesn’t meant that I would be willing to consider that practice, however.

It’s natural to think of people who you admired. Think of the number of schools named after JFK. When someone dies who we think was outstanding, we want to honor him. While it’s not part of Protestant practice, I can see asking for someone who was my parent or mentor for continuing help. But it seems that at a certain point this can get out of control. While the idea of a JFK school is understandable, a shrine to JFK at the front of my church would seem absurd.

At a certain point I have to start asking whether ideas of Jesus have become so exalted that he can no longer effectively function as the one mediator. I'm not so worried that people are stealing honor from Jesus. I'm sure he's not so worried about his honor. I am, however, concerned about what all of this devotion says about the understanding of Jesus.

Why aren't people lighting candles asking Jesus to pray for them? Yes, I know there are devotions to his sacred heart, and even his statue in Prague. But I'm not aware of people using the whole human being Jesus in the same way. (1 Tim 2:5) Jesus is divine, but if he's so divine that we need mediators to the mediator, it seems to me that our Christology is in trouble.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think it’s hard to maintain that Catholics (I don’t know EO practice well enough to comment) are worshipping saints and Mary. Prayers to Mary are generally, “Mary pray for us.” No one confuses them with God. That doesn’t meant that I would be willing to consider that practice, however.
Now Hedrick...you know from past discussions (as well as your own knowledge) that "Mary pray for us" merely scratches the surface of the actions that describe RC devotions to Mary. It is those actions and beliefs that are at the heart of this issue, no matter on which side a person discussing it finally comes down.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,591
18,509
Orlando, Florida
✟1,257,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I think it’s hard to maintain that Catholics (I don’t know EO practice well enough to comment) are worshipping saints and Mary.

From my experience in EO churches, the Orthodox themselves often use expansive language (much as Jesus did), full of analogy, which can be potentially misleading about their dogmatic theology.

In terms of dogmatic theology, Orthodoxy is not far from the Lutheran Book of Concord. In terms of actual practices, the devotion to the Virgin Mary is in some ways more intense than in Roman Catholicism, especially in terms of its place in the liturgy. But the theology about here is very different.

Why aren't people lighting candles asking Jesus to pray for them?

It's not a matter of "either/or". Icons of Christ are very common in the Eastern Orthodox churches.

I believe its difficult to reduce the motivations down to pure reasons. Probably a great deal of appeal of saints, from the Orthodox perspective, is that they are often "ordinary people" that have run the race. Also, Mary provides a motherly or feminine face to pray to (or through, rather). So it isn't necessarily a question of access to God.

I just felt like responding to this because the topic is drifting into talking about Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary and the saints, and Orthodox and Catholics have different theology and practice in this area, even if Protestants are not always aware of it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,308.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I just felt like responding to this because the topic is drifting into talking about Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary and the saints, and Orthodox and Catholics have different theology and practice in this area, even if Protestants are not always aware of it.

The OP was about Protestant attitudes. Remember that our attitudes towards devotion to people other than Jesus was formed largely in response to Catholic practice. And not necessarily the best Catholic practice.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟66,235.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why aren't people lighting candles asking Jesus to pray for them? Yes, I know there are devotions to his sacred heart, and even his statue in Prague. But I'm not aware of people using the whole human being Jesus in the same way. (1 Tim 2:5) Jesus is divine, but if he's so divine that we need mediators to the mediator, it seems to me that our Christology is in trouble.

There's actually an answer to that. That was the understanding in some religions that became melded with Christianity; that we need a dead person who we've somehow believed to have the ear of God better than we alive on earth. With Christ as God motif, this idea is, as you point out, puts "better" mediators between us and the mediator.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,591
18,509
Orlando, Florida
✟1,257,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
There's actually an answer to that. That was the understanding in some religions that became melded with Christianity; that we need a dead person who we've somehow believed to have the ear of God better than we alive on earth. With Christ as God motif, this idea is, as you point out, puts "better" mediators between us and the mediator.

It has nothing to do with a saint being a better mediator than Christ. That's ridiculous. It's just the usual anti-Catholic propaganda that is grossly inappropriate in a civil discussion about a separate religious body.

The rest of that stuff can be chalked up to genetic fallacies or argument from spurious similarity. The fact is, the practice was present in the early church, we have evidence from at least the end of the 2nd century with Hippoplytus. These guys were fanatically against heresy and for the preservation of their tradition, and yet they never said anything agaist it.

The practice may have first started with martyrs. And for sure early Christians believed they were closer to God, because their salvation was assumed to be certain, their faith sealed in their blood. Much as Stephen's was in the New Testament. Dying for the faith was considered the highest honor, to be united with Christ's sacrifice perfectly. In time, this honor spread to those who had made a more symbolic martyrdom, of renunciation of the world or performing extreme acts of charity. The idea is the same.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,348
14,508
Vancouver
Visit site
✟311,383.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It has nothing to do with a saint being a better mediator than Christ. That's ridiculous. It's just the usual anti-Catholic propaganda that is grossly inappropriate in a civil discussion about a separate religious body.

The rest of that stuff can be chalked up to genetic fallacies or argument from spurious similarity. The fact is, the practice was present in the early church, we have evidence from at least the end of the 2nd century with Hippoplytus. These guys were fanatically against heresy and for the preservation of their tradition, and yet they never said anything agaist it.

The practice may have first started with martyrs. And for sure early Christians believed they were closer to God, because their salvation was assumed to be certain, their faith sealed in their blood. Much as Stephen's was in the New Testament. Dying for the faith was considered the highest honor, to be united with Christ's sacrifice perfectly. In time, this honor spread to those who had made a more symbolic martyrdom, of renunciation of the world or performing extreme acts of charity. The idea is the same.
Yet you would think that since Stephen's was the first martyred saint that as close to God as he was, we see not one instance of anyone praying to him, not any apostles whatsoever. You would think that if that was an accepted practise we would see it here. Since we don't then we can reasonably chalk that up to fallacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Standing Up
Upvote 0