saints of this and that (moved from GT)

[Tzaousios]

I teach church history. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. But it sure would be helpful to me if you'd give me some examples so that I might know what you're referring to.

I would very much like to see some evidence of this. So far, you have merely reproduced the standard rhetorically-charged, anti-Catholic talking points. What is more, you have conflated the Eastern Orthodox Church with Roman Catholicism, which is a mistake that an ecclesiastical historian would not make.

 

[Dorothea]

Not to butt in my dear, but I did have a question I'd like for you to ask. Considering how heavy Revelation is in the symbolism department, why is it that you think that this was a literal scene of what "souls" in heaven were doing?

Also, what was meant by the angel when it told the souls to rest a little while longer?

Stryder, my friend, you seem to appear any time there is a slight mention of what happens after our deaths and if it touches at all on not soul sleep.

Yes, Revelation is full of symbolism. It's also said (just heard this from Fr. Tom Hopko on his Apacolype CD I was listening to on Saturday afternoon) that St. John wrote this way so that only the initiates would understand - the Churches (people) to be prepared for what was coming - the persecutions - and to give them encouragement and hope.

Anyhow, it is the understanding of the early Church on what that means in Revelation - being part of the Churches given his writings. Also, the angel saying that to the souls is saying that it is not finished yet and that the Final Judgment hasn't come yet at that time. They are to rest - and I would believe that means continue to pray for all. That is all they can do and do do during these end times between Christ's Incarnation, death and resurrection to His Second Coming.

 

[Fireinfolding]

In 2Thes 3:6

Paul speaks of one of these *traditions* they recieved of him

Which he actually named in

2Thes 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

It wasnt "a form" of godliness, but after a manner of life

 

[Dorothea]

My only question is how do the saints hear you? I mean, if I were to right now, start praying to you, for you to pray for me, you wouldn't hear me would you?

That is quite simple. We are here on earth, and there are limitations on what we hear and see. We look through an unclear glass, so to speak. It is gray because we are on earth. So, we here on earth cannot hear the prayers of our brethren, nor the prayers of our brethren in heaven, but those in heaven are not limited as we are here. They are in the presence of Christ, and so, wouldn't you think their limitations wouldn't be so? The gray would have lifted? Those who have eyes could truly see, and those who have ears can truly hear? Like Rachel and the souls under the Altar. Do you believe when you're in the presence of God that things are seen and heard more clearly than on earth?

 

[American Routes]

I would very much like to see some evidence of this. So far, you have merely reproduced the standard rhetorically-charged, anti-Catholic talking points.

It's unfortunate that you would imply that I'm lying and that you believe that my questions are "anti-Catholic".

What is more, you have conflated the Eastern Orthodox Church with Roman Catholicism, which is a mistake that an ecclesiastical historian would not make.

Actually, I never said anything about Roman Catholicism or the Eastern Orthodox Church. Never even entered my mind.

it's unfortunate that you would feel the need to put words in my mouth that way, particularly since I was respectful to you and looked forward to having a thoughtful conversation with you about this. But, I guess that just isn't your goal.

 

[Tzaousios]

While "historical records" are interesting and can give us a glimpse into the history of the church, they are not on the same level as scripture.

No one has said that historical records have been raised to the same level as Scripture. To assert that this has been done is yet another unhelpful anti-Catholic trope.

What is your reason for rejecting history as informative for theological interpretation? You give the impression that you reject history, although in reality you have assumed a certain amount of it, whether it is from the nineteenth century or from The Trail of Blood.

OK. That's a little too schoolyard for my tastes, but if you want to go that way, then please show why our interpretation is wrong and yours is correct.

Schoolyard? Please correct me if you are not pushing your particular interpretation of Scripture as "what the Bible plainly says."

As for the second request, the onus is on you because of the original criticism and assertion that your interpretation is superior. It is fallaciously asking me to prove a negative.

 

[Tzaousios]

It's unfortunate that you would imply that I'm lying and that you believe that my questions are "anti-Catholic".

I never said you were lying. What I did say, however, is that I would like to see some evidence of your knowledge of church history besides the assertion that you teach it.

As for your denial of using anti-Catholic rhetoric, one only has to read your record of posts to see that attacking Catholicism (and what you perceive as Catholicism) with stereotypes is very close to the norm.

If you do not believe that what you say is anti-Catholic, how exactly do you distinguish between your "questions" and the usual rhetoric that is tossed about daily in GT concerning Catholics and Orthodox?

So far we have seen you react against Marian doctrines, intercession of the saints, the use of church history, etc. That appears to be standard anti-Catholicism to me.

Actually, I never said anything about Roman Catholicism or the Eastern Orthodox Church. Never even entered my mind.

Seriously? Not from what I can tell from your posting record.

Nevertheless, due to the nature of your questions and rhetoric, "Roman Catholicism" or "Eastern Orthodoxy" does not exactly have to be stated literally. Anyone who has been in GT for a little bit can discern that these are the primary targets.

it's unfortunate that you would feel the need to put words in my mouth that way, particularly since I was respectful to you and looked forward to having a thoughtful conversation with you about this. But, I guess that just isn't your goal.

Your rhetorical defense of me "putting words into your mouth" not withstanding, we can still have a thoughtful conversation. Please don't expect me to acquiesce in the use of stereotypical tropes, or refuse to call a spade a spade, however.

 

[Dorothea]

All works.



What I'm asking you is, shouldn't we get our doctrine from scripture? When we judge the religious doctrines and practices within the church, shouldn't scripture be our standard?

Where do you think the Orthodox Church got all their teachings from? Thin air? No, from looking through the Scriptures (when they were available) and keeping what was taught to them by the Apostles.

Nobody is arguing that there were not oral traditions. I'm just asking you what oral traditions you believe exist outside of scripture and how you know they're legitimate and correct, if not by judging them in light of the objective and authoritative standard of scripture.

How we do baptisms, how we do the liturgy (although, our liturgy is replicated from the images from Isaiah and Revelation and also from Exodus). Other such "church business" that the Apostles passed onto the churches.

Also, what you may not know and need to understand, the Scriptures were always held in high respect and regard in Holy Tradition, but the book - as holy as it is and is the icon of Christ - was not the sole authority. Christ is the head of the Church and the sole authority. No book, no man, and no one bishop. Matters of dogma were revealed to His people - the Apostles - and they were passed onto the Churches they founded - to the elders - the bishops and eventually the priests and all the people. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church to lead it until His Second Coming - to guide it to all truth - even through all the heresies and persecutions and other such things that happen in every age in this world. Because He promised us this.

Ecumenical Councils determined what was always believed. They did not invent teachings or dogma, but confirmed what was always taught and revealed to the Church.

So if that's true, then why do you appear to be justifying your beliefs by appealing to possibility that they may be included in the things Jesus didn't say, rather than using what He did say to shape your doctrine and beliefs?

because we were never limited to a book, because God is also outside a book - as holy and wonderful as it is and to be studied daily - and through revelation from the beginning.

The issue isn't praying to God, but praying to dead "saints".

There are no "dead" Saints. If the saints are dead, then Christ's work on the Cross and Resurrection, and our being saved did not happen.

So why do you pray to the dead to pray for you when scripture says that we're not to pray to the dead? They have no more power than you do. Their prayers are no more effective because of their assumed proximity to God. Where are we ever taught to pray to dead saints?

We were never taught to pray to the dead. We were taught to pray for each other, ALIVE in Christ. If you believe the saints are dead, then how can you believe in Christ's work on the Cross, His Resurrection, and us never being apart from Him even in "death." How are we saved if the saints are "dead?"

Their prayers are quite effective exactly because of their proximity to Christ God. Because they are in His very presence, without any earthly separation. They finished the race and are with Him, so therefore, since they pray unceasingly where they are, and they are there, the prayers of the righteous are quite powerful.

That's true, but we're not talking about being seperated from God. We're talking about praying to dead "saints" and their ability to hear us and influence circumstances in our lives.

Again, they're not dead. If they're dead, none of us are saved, and Christ wasted His time coming in the flesh and dying for us. Do you think your family and friends' prayers help you out at all when you ask for their prayers? Scripture shows they do hear the prayers and struggles of those on earth through the story of Rachel, Revelation and the book of Baruch. The prayers of many and the prayers of the righteous are powerful, as I said before.

Again, the issue is not praying to God or praying for one another, but praying to dead "saints" and whether or not the dead can hear us or influence circumstances in our lives.

The issue is that you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. There is no barrier in His Body. His Body cannot be separated.

Except that they don't focus you on the life of Christ when their purpose is for you to pray to them.

That is your opinion and assumption. It doesn't make it true. When you ask your family member of friend to pray for you, does asking them for their prayers take you away from your focus on Christ?

Did you read the verses provided to you by Salida?

I'm sorry, I must've missed that. If you wouldn't mind, could you post it again since I didn't see it.

Which verse are you referring to?

Revelation 6:9-11.

But how do you know they're included in the traditions Paul tells us to keep?

Because our bishops go back to the Apostles, because our Churches kept whatever writings they could from that time, and kept the oral teaching from those taught by Paul.

I teach church history. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. But it sure would be helpful to me if you'd give me some examples so that I might know what you're referring to.

That's interesting. My only concern is what type of church history you are teaching. From my experience, most westerners are taught Western Christian History and not Eastern, so I'm afraid there may be quite a bit of disinformation and biased, but you are free to prove me wrong.

Except for the small detail that the dead are dead and we're forbidden to pray to the dead.

Again, I already answered this about 3 times above.

The Bible very clearly describes them as being dead. In fact, in several cases, it even describes their death.

If they are of Christ, they aren't dead. And what you may be reading in the Bible are spiritual or physical deaths. There's a difference.

 

[American Routes]

Your rhetorical defense of me "putting words into your mouth" not withstanding, we can still have a thoughtful conversation.

Based on your continued tone and accusations, I don't believe we can. Like I said, I tried to be respectful to you and you just don't seem to be interested in reciprocating.

I just don't see anything productive or honoring to Christ in continuing to try to talk to you.

Where do you think the Orthodox Church got all their teachings from? Thin air? No, from looking through the Scriptures (when they were available) and keeping what was taught to them by the Apostles

First, you say that you get all your teachings from the Bible but, earlier, you told me that some of your teachings are from traditions that are not contained in the Bible. How do you reconcile these two statements?

How we do baptisms, how we do the liturgy (although, our liturgy is replicated from the images from Isaiah and Revelation and also from Exodus). Other such "church business" that the Apostles passed onto the churches.

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. I was speaking of doctrines that are based on tradition, not practices within the church.

Also, what you may not know and need to understand, the Scriptures were always held in high respect and regard in Holy Tradition, but the book - as holy as it is and is the icon of Christ - was not the sole authority.

I understand that. The Bible has never been the sole authority. The question is, is it the highest authority to which all your other authorities submit?

Christ is the head of the Church and the sole authority.

So then God's revelation carries no authority?

There are no "dead" Saints.

How about Stephen? You consider Stephen to be a saint, don't you?

If the saints are dead, then Christ's work on the Cross and Resurrection, and our being saved did not happen.

Doesn't the Bible record Stephen's death after Christ's atonement and resurrection?

We were never taught to pray to the dead.

Then where did you get the idea?

If you believe the saints are dead, then how can you believe in Christ's work on the Cross, His Resurrection, and us never being apart from Him even in "death." How are we saved if the saints are "dead?"

Christ's atonement was to satisfy God's wrath against us, not to make our physical bodies immortal. Christ was resurrected so that we will be resurrected and, at that time, out physical bodies will be immortal, but not now.

Their prayers are quite effective exactly because of their proximity to Christ God.

How do you know this?

Because they are in His very presence, without any earthly separation.

How is God any less able to hear and act on our prayers because we're on Earth?

They finished the race and are with Him, so therefore, since they pray unceasingly where they are, and they are there, the prayers of the righteous are quite powerful.

How are they any more righteous than those made righteous by Christ who are still here on Earth?

Do you think your family and friends' prayers help you out at all when you ask for their prayers?

Honestly? No.

Scripture shows they do hear the prayers

What verse would that be?

Revelation 6:9-11.

Their words in Rev 6:9-11 is a reaction to the opening of the Fifth Seal, not to prayers from people on Earth.

Because our bishops go back to the Apostles, because our Churches kept whatever writings they could from that time, and kept the oral teaching from those taught by Paul.

Do you have any examples of Paul's writings from this time?

My only concern is what type of church history you are teaching. From my experience, most westerners are taught Western Christian History and not Eastern, so I'm afraid there may be quite a bit of disinformation and biased, but you are free to prove me wrong.

I'm not here to prove you wrong. I believe we teach a complete and comprehensive view of church history. If you don't, then you're free to not take our classes.

If they are of Christ, they aren't dead.

The Bible gives an account of Stephen's death.

 

[Tzaousios]

Based on your continued tone and accusations, I don't believe we can.

What tone and accusations are you talking about? All I have done is provided a specific observation on what you have been saying about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Instead of reciprocating by explaining what the foundation for your interpretation is, as well as distinguishing for clarity how your criticisms are any different than anti-Catholic tropes, you have deflected your perception of my posting style. Why haven't you done this?

Like I said, I tried to be respectful to you and you just don't seem to be interested in reciprocating.

This is all well and good to claim respect, but when you imply that refusal to accept your arguments or criticisms is "disrespect," the sentiment breaks down.

I just don't see anything productive or honoring to Christ in continuing to try to talk to you.

Yes, I understand the rhetorical implications in this statement.

However, I will declare here and now that I respect you insofar as you are another Christian and seem to hold some sincere beliefs. The thing is, I do not agree or particularly like what you have said about Eastern Orthodoxy or ecclesiastical history. Why is that so bad and preventing us from discussing it?

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder, my friend, you seem to appear any time there is a slight mention of what happens after our deaths and if it touches at all on not soul sleep.

I get in where I fit in

Yes, Revelation is full of symbolism. It's also said (just heard this from Fr. Tom Hopko on his Apacolype CD I was listening to on Saturday afternoon) that St. John wrote this way so that only the initiates would understand - the Churches (people) to be prepared for what was coming - the persecutions - and to give them encouragement and hope.

I do agree that this was written in such a way that only those who were meant to understand it (God's chosen) would.

Anyhow, it is the understanding of the early Church on what that means in Revelation - being part of the Churches given his writings. Also, the angel saying that to the souls is saying that it is not finished yet and that the Final Judgment hasn't come yet at that time. They are to rest - and I would believe that means continue to pray for all. That is all they can do and do do during these end times between Christ's Incarnation, death and resurrection to His Second Coming.

That may be the understanding of the early church, but why is that your understanding? Again, considering that the book of Revelation is heavily symbolic, why would you assume that this single snippet was meant to be taken literal?

 

[patience7]

What's the scriptural evidence saying that they can't?

Post #82

 

[Dark_Lite]

My only question is how do the saints hear you? I mean, if I were to right now, start praying to you, for you to pray for me, you wouldn't hear me would you?

Divinization (Christian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Souls in heaven have the power of God behind them.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Divinization (Christian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Souls in heaven have the power of God behind them.

Well, according to this site, this theory "is prominent in the Eastern Orthodox Church and also in the Catholic Church and the Latter Day Saint movement."

Nothing was offered to support the idea what when humans go to Heaven, the biology surrounding the sense of hearing is fundamentally altered so that they can now detect and process the sound ways created by the 7 billion people on earth that pray (even silently). NOTHING was given on the site you referenced to support that view, from the RCC or EOC or LDS.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Post #82

I thought you raised some valid points....




.

 

[Tzaousios]

Well, according to this site, this theory "is prominent in the Eastern Orthodox Church and also in the Catholic Church and the Latter Day Saint movement.".

I really hope this was not an attempt to associate the former two with the latter. That would be in very poor taste.

Nothing was offered to support the idea what when humans go to Heaven, the biology surrounding the sense of hearing is fundamentally altered so that they can now detect and process the sound ways created by the 7 billion people on earth that pray (even silently). NOTHING was given on the site you referenced to support that view, from the RCC or EOC or LDS.

So what? It is very strange that one would think it appropriate to apply an Enlightenment, scientifically-rational mode of thought to try to (in)validate what is in essence a spiritual, non-rational communication.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Even Jesus (who is the power of God) said in that day we shall ask him nothing, and directs us to praying to the Father

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

John 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.


Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven,

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


1John 5:14-15 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desire of him.

 

[Stryder06]

That is quite simple. We are here on earth, and there are limitations on what we hear and see. We look through an unclear glass, so to speak. It is gray because we are on earth. So, we here on earth cannot hear the prayers of our brethren, nor the prayers of our brethren in heaven, but those in heaven are not limited as we are here. They are in the presence of Christ, and so, wouldn't you think their limitations wouldn't be so? The gray would have lifted? Those who have eyes could truly see, and those who have ears can truly hear? Like Rachel and the souls under the Altar. Do you believe when you're in the presence of God that things are seen and heard more clearly than on earth?

I believe that when Christ restores us to our rightful state that we will indeed see and hear more clearly. That however is not to be until after the second coming, for it is at that time that the mortal shall put on immortality and the corruptible the incorruptible. What you're attributing to those who you believe are in heaven would seem to be difficult to possess considering they don't have bodies.

 

[Stryder06]

Divinization (Christian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Souls in heaven have the power of God behind them.

So do souls on earth.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I really hope this was not an attempt to associate the former two with the latter.

I'll need to ask the website that we were referred to. Frankly, I saw NOTHING on it to support the idea that those in heaven hear and/or answer prayers, so I don't know why it was referenced.

Nothing was offered to support the idea what when humans go to Heaven, the biology surrounding the sense of hearing is fundamentally altered so that they can now detect and process the sound ways created by the 7 billion people on earth that pray (even silently). NOTHING was given on the site you referenced to support that view, from the RCC or EOC or LDS.

.

So what?

Only if truth matters.





.