saints of this and that (moved from GT)

[patience7]

So am I to disregard the scriptures in Thessalonians regarding the resurrection? Since the saints are already in heaven, or anyone for that matter - What need is there of a resurrection?

Or the scripture in Ecclesiastes that are very clear concerning the state of the dead?

Ecclesiastes: the dead know not any thing, that their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing under the sun and "for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." Are we to let traditions of men take precident over clear scripture?

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

@MetanoiaHeart What you said was this:


What i find interesting is that you were the one who said something I did not say. I did not say that those men did not have the Holy Spirit, you added that all by yourself, in fact, you added a lot of those things when describing "my tradition", of which I didn't know I had. I said, when replying to Chrsostoma, that I didn't care about their interpretation of scripture because I don't know their interpretation, my beliefs were molded by what I read in scripture.

The fact is that you do have a tradition, whether you know it or not. That was my point. You believe you are only reading the Scripture and know exactly what the Apostles meant when they wrote it, but why is your interpretation so reliable?

That isn't a rhetorical question. I'd actually like to know why you think you know what the Apostles meant better than the men who canonized the Bible did. My point was not to say trust those men over the Apostles - my point is to trust those men over yourself.

I responded to you in a sarcastic tone. I understood your point and still reponded the way I did to say that I will most emphatically side with scripture--because those men had first hand account of what was happening, over anyone who came after them. Those men who canonized scripture did just that. They didn't have a commentary that was included in Scripture, I don't know what they believed. I would assume it would be what they have in scripture. I'm assuming that's what they were being taught.

Those men had the written and spoken tradition handed down to them directly from the Apostles and their disciples, that is the ultimate commentary. They did not rip Scripture form the context in which it was written and preserved (like your tradition does), so it is very important to know what they believed because it is precisely what the Apostles believed.

But let's not get side-tracked, we're speaking about praying to saint this or that...Funny, those scriptures that those men canonized, doesn't mention to us that we should pray/ask/intercede/(whatever the proper saying is) to Christians that have physically died. In fact, a "saint" in the Scripture that those men canonized teaches us that a saint is God's people...nothing more or less than that, anyone who is a Christian is a saint by definition. When people in Scripture, that those men canonized, prayed, it's only to God. We don't have Scripture telling us, teaching us, explaing to us that they prayed/ask/intercede/(whatever the proper saying is) to those who have pasted on.

Please, don't get mad and think that I twisted your sayings when your very first reply to me was you doing the exact same thing that you have accused me of doing.

I did not twist your words - I pointed out to you something that you did not realize, that you indeed have a tradition. And it's a tradition that is vastly different from the Apostles.

It is directly relevant to the conversation at hand because the men who canonized the Scriptures, the men who were carrying on the Tradition of the Apostles, also believed in intercession of the saints.


Now I'll go and read the other posts which follow yours, sorry if I've repeated anything.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

Okay, I read through the thread. Looks like everything has been said and nobody is budging, but great conversation nonetheless. Have a nice day, everyone!

 

[Stryder06]

The exact same way that Paul heard the desperate pleas of the Macedonian man asking for him to come help him and his people. By the grace of God, and nothing else.

Acts 16:9

During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come over to Macedonia and help us."

To the Orthodox, this is not a novel idea, nor should it be given the example we have in St. Paul. In fact, we have many Saints who were shown to do this very thing while they were alive; that is hear the needs of people from a distance, and pray for them or go to them. A more knowledgable Orthodox than I would probably be able to give you at least a dozen Saints who were known for these very things. So indeed, such a thing is possible, as Paul bore witness to, with the superabundant grace of God dwelling within.

So the Saints in heaven are given visions by God about prayers they need to petition to Him for others?

I mean, that's what Paul received, it was a vision, and visions aren't usually literal events but rather are scenes portrayed in such a way that allows the recipient to understand what God wants them to do/say.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The fact is that you do have a tradition, whether you know it or not. That was my point. You believe you are only reading the Scripture and know exactly what the Apostles meant when they wrote it, but why is your interpretation so reliable?

So the fact that I believe the Scripture over anything else, means that somehow it's a tradition and somehow it's a bad one?

I guess when it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

I shouldn't take it at face value?

That isn't a rhetorical question. I'd actually like to know why you think you know what the Apostles meant better than the men who canonized the Bible did. My point was not to say trust those men over the Apostles - my point is to trust those men over yourself.

Because the Apostles tell you what they mean when you read it. I don't trust myself over those who canonized the scripture, I trust those who wrote it over those who canonized the scripture. I'm not trusting in myself, I'm trusting in what I am reading.

Those men had the written and spoken tradition handed down to them directly from the Apostles and their disciples, that is the ultimate commentary. They did not rip Scripture form the context in which it was written and preserved (like your tradition does), so it is very important to know what they believed because it is precisely what the Apostles believed.

Those men who canonized the bible were 3200+ years removed from a direct communication between the Apostles and the disciples who walked with God.

I did not twist your words - I pointed out to you something that you did not realize, that you indeed have a tradition. And it's a tradition that is vastly different from the Apostles.

How is my tradition vastly different from the Apostles when we don't have an apostle teaching us/writing to us to pray to a saint who have pasted on?

It is directly relevant to the conversation at hand because the men who canonized the Scriptures, the men who were carrying on the Tradition of the Apostles, also believed in intercession of the saints.

Because those men believed in intercession of the saints, I must believe it even though it is not written in the Scriptures?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I see. What about those who didn't have the written words to read, but were told what was taught to them by the Apostles, told to these people? In any case, they're alive. I realize that. Yes, this was always done by the evidence and history of the Church from the beginning. As I said, the first and second century Christians only had bits and pieces of the NT writings, and they weren't handed out to people, but left in the altars to keep them protected. When the persecutions were going on those first 3 centuries or so, when a martyr died, people gathered up their bodies, or what was left of them, carried them to a spot to venerate their relics and ask them to pray for those left fighting on earth, defending the faith. Churches were built on the sites of where the martyrs died. Eventually, later on, instead of the Churches being built where the martyrs died, the martyr's bodies were moved and put in the altars of the Churches. This is also shown in Revelation regarding the souls of the martyrs under the altar table. It's part of Church history.

Are we forgetting why they had the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Are we also forgetting that the letters that were written by the Apostles were being circulated as well?

Why are we calling the church a building?

Christ Himself told the story. You do not believe Abraham was in the presence of God and that he didn't know anything? Abraham said no. He wouldn't have said no if God said yes. The Saints only pray for us. They have no control on what the answer is. They pass on prayers for us to God and God answers us in due time as always. Just like any other time we pray.

And yet we see that Abraham did not pray for his brothers and that the rich man didn't ask Abraham to pray for his brothers, he asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers. And we didn't even see Abraham passing on prayers to God about the rich man's brother nor did we see that God gave the answer as no and yes, this is Christ himself telling us the story.

Communicate with the dead. We are not having a conversation with the Saints, where they converse back to us (although this has happened with some of the Saints with experiencing Christ and the Theotokos and sometimes other Saints) but generally speaking, we ask them to pray for us, and that's it. Heaven, in our understanding, is constant worship and praise of God - think of Revelation and Isaiah - so, prayer is going on unceasingly. The Saints in heaven encourage us, cheer us on to finish the race. This intercession happens until His second coming. At that point, it ends because it is the end of the age and we then are where we are for eternity.

I still don't get, who told us that this is what is happening.

I see, so since the bible doesn't explicitly describe how it is in heaven, it must not be. Do you think how it is in heaven is exactly the same as it is here? I think I asked you this before, but you didn't answer. I would appreciate an answer this time. Again, there's no death in Christ.

Because the bible doesn't explicitly describe how it is in heaven, I don't go around and start believing things simply because heaven will be different from here.

1 Corinthians 15:50-58
0 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “ O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.​

I say the Lord's Prayer nightly. I believe you don't understand the concept because you are not familiar with it, it is foreign to you. But this "concept" has always been this way since the first Christians. What we do, we were taught from generation to generation. Holy Tradition is the living out of the faith through the Gospels. This is what the Church does. So, it is not anything novel or innovative to us, but something comfortable and always part of our lives. You also hopefully will remember that St. Paul says to hold fast to the traditions taught both orally and written. We follow both of those, not one. St. John says not everything about Christ was written. It would take up stacks and stacks of books and cover the globe probably if they had tried (paraphrasing John).

So, all of what we have learned, we have learned through the praxis of the Church taught to us by the Apostles to our bishops and downward.

You say that this concept has been so since the first Christians, again, I don't understand that when we don't see those in scripture asking deceased Christians to pray for them. Yes, the Scriptures does tell us how to live our faith and simply because people disagree with what you're saying doesn't mean that they are not living out the faith. I imagine the traditions that we should hold on to, shouldn't contradict what we have in scripture.

By the way, John said this

John 21:25
And there are many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I supposed that even the world itself could not contain the book that would be written. Amen.​

Let's not pretend that simply because other things that Jesus "did" give us the right to start making up stuff that's not inline with Scripture. And yes, I keep saying that we are to pray to God alone because that's the only thing we see in Scripture. We are to pray for each other, those who are alive, because that's what we are told to do, we are not told to asks deceased Christians to pray for us.

And again, the idea of Saint (big S) and Saints (little s) is amusing to me, because we don't see a separation like that in the new testament. BTW, yes, I know you didn't bring that up.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Yes I mentioned in my other post it was incorrect. Typed in a hurry actually. I think I have subscribed to too many threads. I am outta control... My leave will be over soon and then I'll go back into hiding.

I have no doubt that Mary, Joseph and the Apostles are in Heaven.

The 24 elders are the 12 Apostles and the 12 Patriarchs of Israel.

Of course there are rankings. Do you place yourself equal to Jesus, St Paul, St Peter or St Matthew?

I don't place Paul, Peter or Matthew as equal to Jesus, but I place all people as equal to each other:

Romans 3:21-26
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 5:6-11
6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Galatians 3:26-29
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Acts 10:34-43
34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”​

Edit: Expanded the verses.

 

[sunlover1]

And again, the idea of Saint (big S) and Saints (little s) is amusing to me, because we don't see a separation like that in the new testament. BTW, yes, I know you didn't bring that up.

IS this what someone said?
That there are Saints and saints..
?

If so, did they say where they got this idea?

Thanks

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

DayDreamer,
You interpret scripture and claim you understand exactly what the Apostles meant when they wrote it, yet your interpretation is different from others who claim the exact same thing. If you can't see that your private interpretation is nothing more than your own new tradition, then there's nothing more I can say.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

DayDreamer,
You interpret scripture and claim you understand exactly what the Apostles meant when they wrote it, yet your interpretation is different from others who claim the exact same thing. If you can't see that your private interpretation is nothing more than your own new tradition, then there's nothing more I can say.

It was great talking to you.
God bless.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

It was great talking to you.
God bless.

Same to you!

 

[daydreamergurl15]

IS this what someone said?
That there are Saints and saints..
?

If so, did they say where they got this idea?

Thanks

It was mentioned. Not really sure what that even means.
This is not considered gossip, is it?

 

[simonthezealot]

DayDreamer,
You interpret scripture and claim you understand exactly what the Apostles meant when they wrote it, yet your interpretation is different from others who claim the exact same thing. If you can't see that your private interpretation is nothing more than your own new tradition, then there's nothing more I can say.

Repentant Heart, are you suggesting scripture was written at such a high level of genius that NO one can understand it?

Paul said this, without demanding an official interpretation “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,
let him acknowledge that the things that I
write unto you are the commandments of
the Lord”
Now back to the topic of the thread.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

Repentant Heart, are you suggesting scripture was written at such a high level of genius that NO one can understand it?

Um, no.

But then there is 2 Peter 3:14-16

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Some things are difficult to understand, and there are many differing private interpretations of scripture than cannot all be correct. I will not derail the thread any further.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Um, no.

But then there is 2 Peter 3:14-16

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Some things are difficult to understand, and there are many differing private interpretations of scripture than cannot all be correct. I will not derail the thread any further.

You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked: but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. to Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
--2 Peter 3:17-18​

 

[simonthezealot]

Um, no.

But then there is 2 Peter 3:14-16

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Some things are difficult to understand, and there are many differing private interpretations of scripture than cannot all be correct. I will not derail the thread any further.

Peter is warning against false teachers, he urges us often to seek scriptures and that the word is critical in living out our christian life, and what he is saying here is though Paul is difficult his words are nonetheless God-breathed so don't twist them to your own destruction.

Back to the topic.

 

[Dorothea]

Because the Apostles tell you what they mean when you read it. I don't trust myself over those who canonized the scripture, I trust those who wrote it over those who canonized the scripture. I'm not trusting in myself, I'm trusting in what I am reading.

Yes, but trusting yourself in reading and interpreting the Scriptures and making it your sole authority is a tradition of men, not the Tradition of the Apostles because that is not how they and their followers interpreted the Bible. The Bible was never the sole authority from the beginning. It was always the council of bishops studying the scriptures along with what was taught orally by the Apostles. The first Ecumenical Council was shown in Acts in Jerusalem where St. James was the bishop there. When reading that, did they just consult the OT scriptures and decide something? I don't think so. They discussed and ended in agreement and with what they understood to be true by saying in so many words - "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us."

Those men who canonized the bible were 3200+ years removed from a direct communication between the Apostles and the disciples who walked with God.

I hope that "3200+ years" is a typo.

Are we forgetting why they had the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Are we also forgetting that the letters that were written by the Apostles were being circulated as well?

Could you please elaborate on what you are exactly talking about with regards to the gifts of the Holy Spirit (which we know the Church received on the day of Pentecost)? Are we forgetting? No, we are acknowledging that the circulating of letters took much longer than today's mail service, also Paul's letters were finished later on, not early in the first century. The bible wasn't totally completed until much later. What the Churches had were scrolls - parts of writings the Apostles wrote, and obviously, they were scarce and not abundant at that time. The people learned by word of mouth mostly at that time and also kept the OT scrolls in their Churches. This is obviously why St. Paul said to hold fast to the traditions taught ORALLY and written, because he was usually visiting the churches and talking - ORALLY - to them on what they should do.

Why are we calling the church a building?

Because the Church means both a building of worship and those called out - eklesia. In this case that you bolded, church buildings were build on the spot where the martyrs were killed. Then the martryr's relics were moved to inside the church buildings where they were being built and put in the altars. It wouldn't make any sense to say people crowded on top of the martyrs died or that the relics were placed in the people, would it?

And yet we see that Abraham did not pray for his brothers and that the rich man didn't ask Abraham to pray for his brothers, he asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers. And we didn't even see Abraham passing on prayers to God about the rich man's brother nor did we see that God gave the answer as no and yes, this is Christ himself telling us the story.

Ok, I will just give you the understanding from my OSB footnotes. Maybe this will help you understand what the story means:

Luke 16:24-26 The rich man's appeal to Abraham as a spiritual father is not rejected. Rather, Abraham accepts this role, calling the rich man son and showing himself to be compassionate even towards the most wretched of men. The great gulf is not a geographical divide, but the complete separation between virtue and wickedness, a separation that cannot be overcome after death. Note that torments have not changed the rich man's heart, as he still sees Lazarus as a servant existing for the sake of his own comfort. Finally, this account by Christ reveals the communion of the saints: a man, not even a believer, calls out from Hades and converses with Saint Abraham!

16:27-31 Some Fathers see parable being set after the final judgment, citing the punishment reward being received by the two men respectively. Others see this parable set at a time after death but before the second coming of Christ, as evidenced by the man interceding on behalf of his brothers who were still living. The torment he is experiencing would be but a foretaste of his final state. From this perspective, we learn that souls of the departed have awareness of and concern for the state of those alive on earth (see 9:30, 31; 2Mc 15:12-16; Mt 2:18) but also that the intercessions of a wicked man are heard, but avail nothing (contrast James 5:16).

I still don't get, who told us that this is what is happening.

Christ in the story above and St. Paul, and that was carried and preserved by the followers of the Apostles - the Church Fathers and the whole Church - all the people in it.

Because the bible doesn't explicitly describe how it is in heaven, I don't go around and start believing things simply because heaven will be different from here.

Maybe it's because you've limited yourself to your own, personal interpretation of what the Scriptures say and do not have the historical or Apostolic background in which to delve into to understand the experiences of this. Revelation does say what heaven (heavenly Jerusalem) looks like, and that there are angels and saints up there, and that the saints know what's going on below and ask when the struggles for their brethren on earth will end, and the elders passing the prayers of incense in bowls, and the part about there shall be no more sorrow or death, etc. The description from Isaiah and Revelation of Christ on His Throne, and the angels administering Him, and all the saints around Him praying, along with the angels. Incense - the prayers of the people - floating up. That is the Divine Liturgy - the representation of heaven on earth - and that is heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:50-58
0 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “ O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.​

Ok. I'm not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand, but yes, this is talking about the Final Judgment - the General Resurrection - or the second one and final one referred to in Revelation where everybody's bodies and souls/spirits reunite and are transformed into glorified bodies. What does this have to do with what we were just talking about?

You say that this concept has been so since the first Christians, again, I don't understand that when we don't see those in scripture asking deceased Christians to pray for them. Yes, the Scriptures does tell us how to live our faith and simply because people disagree with what you're saying doesn't mean that they are not living out the faith. I imagine the traditions that we should hold on to, shouldn't contradict what we have in scripture.

It doesn't say to not ask those departed from earth to pray for us, either. It is understood that the Body of Christ is not just on earth, but in heaven, too. The Church Militant and the Church Triumphant are one. There is no division, no separation spiritually. We are one.

As far as judging how you are living the faith, I wouldn't do that and I haven't said so. I'm sorry if you got that impression. Yes, Holy Tradition, which the Bible is part of - go together like a three-legged stool.

By the way, John said this

John 21:25
And there are many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I supposed that even the world itself could not contain the book that would be written. Amen.​

Let's not pretend that simply because other things that Jesus "did" give us the right to start making up stuff that's not inline with Scripture. And yes, I keep saying that we are to pray to God alone because that's the only thing we see in Scripture. We are to pray for each other, those who are alive, because that's what we are told to do, we are not told to asks deceased Christians to pray for us.

Indeed it doesn't, but when you only have the Bible, and not the history of the lives of the people and the lives of the Church ongoing through the Holy Spirit's guidance, of course you could not see past the pages because it would be nothing there for you. We have eye-witness stories verified by those who knew the Apostles, grew up being taught by the Apostles, and taught their successors what they learned.

We are to pray for all Christians alive in Christ - which all are. There's nothing that says in the Bible - pray for those only on earth.

We do not add or subtract to what we were given by the Apostles and the Revelation of God. We simply preserve it and cherish it. Adding and subtracting has been done by other Christian sects, not ours. I don't like to have to say that, but you left me no choice.

And again, the idea of Saint (big S) and Saints (little s) is amusing to me, because we don't see a separation like that in the new testament. BTW, yes, I know you didn't bring that up.

Ok.

 

[Stryder06]

Yes, but trusting yourself in reading and interpreting the Scriptures and making it your sole authority is a tradition of men, not the Tradition of the Apostles because that is not how they and their followers interpreted the Bible. The Bible was never the sole authority from the beginning. It was always the council of bishops studying the scriptures along with what was taught orally by the Apostles. The first Ecumenical Council was shown in Acts in Jerusalem where St. James was the bishop there. When reading that, did they just consult the OT scriptures and decide something? I don't think so. They discussed and ended in agreement and with what they understood to be true by saying in so many words - "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us."

How did Christ teach? Didn't He say continually "It is written"? The council in Acts was about what to teach from the scriptures, and they decided on that which was already established by the scriptures.

My question is why would you trust someone else and their interpretation, when scripture says to study to show thyself approved?

Don't forget, Christ condemned the traditions of man because those traditions lead the people away from that which was written.

 

[Dorothea]

How did Christ teach? Didn't He say continually "It is written"? The council in Acts was about what to teach from the scriptures, and they decided on that which was already established by the scriptures.

My question is why would you trust someone else and their interpretation, when scripture says to study to show thyself approved?

Don't forget, Christ condemned the traditions of man because those traditions lead the people away from that which was written.

There are two traditions = the Apostolic Tradition or Holy Tradition and the traditions of men. The latter is to be discarded, the former is to be followed.

Christ did say it is written. Sure. And the council in Acts did have the OT to go by, but they also had the revelation of God. They also had the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Do you know that there were no writings for many, many years, like hundreds in the OT, but the prophets and Moses and Abraham were able to go on through God's revelation to them.

What we know is that in the OT, the people of Israel passed down this revelation of God and who He was from generation to generation with very little written from the beginning. Holy Tradition is the living out of the Gospel. So we take what was written and orally spoken by the Apostles because that is what we are told to do. And the oral and written tradition are what is part of Holy Tradition. We preserve what has always been taught. Therefore the history of what has been taught orally and written has been preserved in our Churches throughout the ages of ages - the past 2000 years.

 

[Dorothea]

How did Christ teach? Didn't He say continually "It is written"? The council in Acts was about what to teach from the scriptures, and they decided on that which was already established by the scriptures.

My question is why would you trust someone else and their interpretation, when scripture says to study to show thyself approved?

Don't forget, Christ condemned the traditions of man because those traditions lead the people away from that which was written.

I would like to add a question for you, as well as daydreamer, if you don't mind, Stryder, luv.

Can you tell me why first and second century Christians were asking the prayers of those departed martyred Christian saints if it was not taught to do so? Why and how did they learn to do this? Where did they learn this from?