questions for those who pray to "Saints"

[Thekla]

Once again, Revelation is symbolic. Here are some footnotes explaining those verses:

http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=7686&lvid=7687&ol=on

this is where I get confused; the hellenistic meaning of symbolon denotes an inner-penetration of parts so that each part denotes/becomes the whole (entire); this is distinct from the modern definition of symbol which means something that stands for another thing (sign)

 

[Asinner]

81 The bowls are the saints' prayers brought to God by the angelic elders (cf. 8:3-4), whereas the incense is Christ added to the saints' prayers. That in their worship to God the twenty-four angelic elders are holding the golden bowls full of incense shows that they, as priests, are ministering to God by bringing the saints' prayers to Him.

This commentary supports prayer to saints and angels.

 

[Thekla]

which still does not answer the question of whether it is proper to direct prayers to saints or not. But we know that the Bible doesn't show us any examples of it...and even Tradition can't justify it since there is no kernel of a Bible truth to embellish (i.e. Tradition). We just have to believe revelation and not rationalize until we find some linguistic loophole.

in my understanding, "rationalize" is the limitation of the spiritual reality in Christ using human ways of thinking (the rational, physical mind) -- it is the impulse to circumscribe the actions and reality of God using human standards (using the brain or fleshly 'nous' instead of the cleansed 'nous' to use Paul's terminology)

 

[Albion]

angelic elders are holding the golden bowls full of incense shows that they, as priests, are ministering to God by bringing the saints' prayers to Him.

This commentary supports prayer to saints and angels.

No, "what it supports" has nothing to do with us praying to them. And it doesn't even show these beings to be "in possession of" the prayers. According to the wording (Rev. 8.3-4) "(an angel) was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne."

 

[Albion]

You never answered the questions and made statements that went against what the Scriptures speak to on this.

Love,
Christina

Yes, I answered them and did use scripture.

If you disagree with my explanation, I AGAIN invite you to offer a dissenting explanation.

If you won't do that, I can't help you since merely saying "you didn't answer" doesn't tells us anything other than that you didn't understand.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'm going to pretend for a minute that I also agree with the vision in Revelation being completely literal.

now, showing that the angels and elders are in possession of prayers, is STILL no indication that these prayers were sent to THEM first, to be passed on to God.

there is no mention that the prayers of the saints were to the Saints in heaven, to be forwarded at that time. How they end up in "possession" of prayers? it doesn't say. a great assumption is being made that because the elders have prayers to offer to God, that they were neccessarily "sent" to the elders and angels in the first place.

beyond that, removing myself again from literal imagery as opposed to graphic imagery, prayers are hardly a commodity. They aren't a tangible thing that can be stored in a bowl.

surely you must recognize this.

 

[Thekla]

p

 

[Asinner]

No, "what it supports" has nothing to do with us praying to them. And it doesn't even show these beings to be "in possession of" the prayers. According to the wording (Rev. 8.3-4) "(an angel) was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne."

. . . having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

How do they have them?

 

[Albion]

. . . having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

How do they have them?

allegorically, not literally. And even if they did "have" them, it doesn't mean in any way that we know how they came by them, does it?

As you know, Uphill Battle already explained this: ("....now, showing that the angels and elders are in possession of prayers, is STILL no indication that these prayers were sent to THEM first, to be passed on to God. there is no mention that the prayers of the saints were to the Saints in heaven, to be forwarded at that time....")

 

[Thekla]

allegorically, not literally. And even if they did "have" them, it doesn't mean in any way that we know how they came by them, does it?

As you know, Uphill Battle already explained this: ("....now, showing that the angels and elders are in possession of prayers, is STILL no indication that these prayers were sent to THEM first, to be passed on to God.

there is no mention that the prayers of the saints were to the Saints in heaven, to be forwarded at that time....)

by literal do you mean actual ?

 

[Albion]

by literal do you mean actual ?

No, I mean "in the physical way painted by the words used." You know, it always amazes me--and somewhat disappoints me-- that Orthodox Christians commonly turn everything into symbolism...until doing the opposite suits their purposes. THEN what I read is a defense of taking the Bible more literally than the average fundamentalist does. Revelation is clearly a vision. It's author tells us that, if we had any doubts anyway. Every theologian agrees.

Take this example. In one of the verses recently used here, the prayers of the faithful are said to be upon the altar. How is that done, literally speaking? How are we to suppose that a thought, something that is not physical or even quantifiable can be placed or located upon any altar?

 

[Asinner]

allegorically, not literally. And even if they did "have" them, it doesn't mean in any way that we know how they came by them, does it?

Then you do not know that it could be through prayer.


Look at Job . . .
33:23If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness: 24Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom. (KJV)



23 If there be with him an angel, An interpreter, one among a thousand, To show unto man what is right for him;
24 Then God is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom.(ASV)

 

[Albion]

Then you do not know that it could be through prayer.

We are talking about the prayers themselves, not "through prayer."

Look at Job . . .
33:23If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness: 24Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom. (KJV)



23 If there be with him an angel, An interpreter, one among a thousand, To show unto man what is right for him;
24 Then God is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom.(ASV)

Nothing there about praying to saints. Remember that we who make this point have not said that those in heaven can't or don't petition God on our behalf, just that--

1) here is no basis for believing that they receive our petitions if directed to them, and

2) even if it were possible, it's not a Godly thing to try.

 

[Thekla]

No, I mean "in the physical way painted by the words used." You know, it always amazes me--and somewhat disappoints me-- that Orthodox Christians commonly turn everything into symbolism...until doing the opposite suits their purposes. THEN what I read is a defense of taking the Bible more literally than the average fundamentalist does. Revelation is clearly a vision. It's author tells us that, if we had any doubts anyway. Every theologian agrees.

Take this example. In one of the verses recently used here, the prayers of the faithful are said to be upon the altar. How is that done, literally speaking? How are we to suppose that a thought, something that is not physical or even quantifiable can be placed or located upon any altar?

see the definition of symbolon previously -- also what is not literal can still be actual

proseuche can mean act and location where the act takes place; a literal and spiritual meaning

 

[Albion]

also what is not literal can still be actual

I believe I've already agreed with you there, although it doesn't change anything in this debate.

proseuche can mean act and location where the act takes place; a literal and spiritual meaning

But you can't pile up thoughts upon a table-top. If you want to consider that altar to be only symbolic or representational, then the rest of items in the passage are also.

 

[Thekla]

I believe I've already agreed with you there, although it doesn't change anything in this debate.



But you can't pile up thoughts upon a table-top. If you want to consider that altar to be only symbolic or representational, then the rest of items in the passage are also.

do you mean the meaning of symbol at the time of Revelations or presently ?

 

[Albion]

do you mean the meaning of symbol at the time of Revelations or presently ?

I mean the present usage because that's what we are saying is the nature of the book. We are not analyzing the use of the term in the Book of Revelation.

 

[Thekla]

I mean the present usage because that's what we are saying is the nature of the book. We are not analyzing the use of the term in the Book of Revelation.

so the book is actually a sign ? (like the rainbow of the OC)

 

[Albion]

so the book is actually a sign ? (like the rainbow of the OC)

I think I prefer the word I first used--allegory.

 

[Thekla]

I think I prefer the word I first used--allegory.

then what idea/ideas do the angels, elders and saints personify ?