Two men are reading the same bible...

[prodromos]

Christ's church is surely everywhere, even when one of His is trekking in antarctica, He is there. He can go everywhere, even into the most dire prison.

There is actually an Orthodox Church in Antarctica

 

[Marvin Knox]

Two men are reading the same bible, one is always alone, the other is always in [high] Church services.
Which one is apt to see the services in the written scripture when any portion of one is mentioned?

As with others here - I really don't know for sure exactly what is being asked.

But I will say that if one goes to a service where some people are dressed as and acting like priests - then he reads his bible - he'll not return to that church (if he listened to the Holy Spirit while reading his bible).

The same goes for the veneration of Mary and or the saints and or relics.

I'm not sure if it will help answer the question for you. But it seems to me that the "higher" the church service the more likely it will be found wanting in so far as seeing what done in the scriptures.

 

[disciple1]

Two men are reading the same bible, one is always alone, the other is always in [high] Church services.

Which one is apt to see the services in the written scripture when any portion of one is mentioned?

Forgive me...

No one reading the bible is ever alone.
Hebrews chapter 4 verse 12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 

[disciple1]

Two men are reading the same bible, one is always alone, the other is always in [high] Church services.

Which one is apt to see the services in the written scripture when any portion of one is mentioned?

Forgive me...

Once more.
John chapter 1 verse 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[DamianWarS]

Specifically, I would be speaking of the Divine Liturgy, inside, outside... it makes no difference.

Here's an audio example. You'll have to imagine the candles, oil lamps and incense.

Forgive me...

can I play this video while reading scripture and I should be ok?

 

[Monk Brendan]

But I will say that if one goes to a service where some people are dressed as and acting like priests - then he reads his bible - he'll not return to that church (if he listened to the Holy Spirit while reading his bible).

Excuse me, but have you ever seen the Divine Liturgy of St. John Crysostom? If you haven't then you're missing out. And I have read my Bible while in a church with Mass or Divine Liturgy going on, and there was never a chance that I would NOT go back.

 

[Athanasius377]

I have an issue with the question as stated. I believe the author is asking if a person is more likely to see movement of liturgy in the scriptures while hearing the scriptures read during liturgy as opposed to not seeing liturgy in the the same scriptures while reading alone. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That said, I believe the question invites a false dichotomy. First, there is an assumption that to "read" is in the modern context. For the majority of Church history "reading" meant having a reader read aloud a text in the presence of others. This was true of both sacred and secular texts since all were essentially manuscripts until the age of the printing press in the fifteenth century. Only the vary privileged and well connected would have had access an entire printing of the bible in the first place. What would have been done was that service books would have had a lectionary where the scriptures would have been read during the course of the church year. These portions of scripture would have been touching on the main doctrinal points in the New Testament, Psalms and major events in the Old Testament but would not had the entire bible printed (copied by hand) in one of these lectionaries. It would have been too costly to have commissioned such a work in a poor rural area. In addition there would have been small prayer books that some would have carried, again, mostly NT and the Psalms, perhaps a few readings from the OT as well. This is to say nothing of the Monastic services where the various offices had scripture read as well.

All of that is not to say there is simply one way to read scripture. Since the advent of the printing press the common person has had for the most part access to the bible. A person now has the opportunity like the monks and academics before to read the bible alone. However, there is no prohibition to study scripture apart from liturgy. Let me be clear, even the reformers of the sixteenth century of which I am an heir would have ever have believed in Solo (not Sola) Scriptura. This is typically characterized as "Just my bible me alone". The Reformation was in many ways the result of having printed bibles where people could read for themselves (if literate) what the bible actually said. Moreover there was a flowering of scholarship that allowed academics in the west to take a more critical eye towards the Latin Vulgate translation which was and still is the source of many of Rome's errors. There is a lot more that could be said regarding this development.

So while this resulted in the fracturing of the Church in the west, many of the church bodies that resulted still use a liturgy derived from the ancient Latin Mass. For example, I as an Anglican use the liturgy as found in the Book of Common Prayer (1928). I know Lutherans use a similar liturgy as well is a number of Reformed Churches. One only gets to the free for all church services in the middle of the nineteenth century. Prior to this most Protestant churches had a liturgy, sang the Psalms and read the bible corporately and privately. While it may be true today where evangelical churches resemble more of a rock concert with a pep talk in the middle this was never the practice of the historic church and therefore this question could make sense in the last 150 years.

 

[Devin P]

Every biblical example of a non-believer coming into the faith is always by being taught by another person. I don’t know of one biblical example of a non-believer coming into the faith strictly by reading scripture. Christianity is, was and shall always be communal.

Was it communal when Abraham knew God? What about Moses? Noah? Seth? How about Rahab? All of these people loved God, but did so on their own.

 

[Devin P]

Two men are reading the same bible, one is always alone, the other is always in [high] Church services.

Which one is apt to see the services in the written scripture when any portion of one is mentioned?

Forgive me...

The question is flawed and biased from the begin brother.

I think, that if someone reads on their own, without the influence of any modernized view of how things should be to be the voice of their interpretation that they will be more apt to learn of how things are supposed to, and intended to be by the Father. If we are reading through the bible from Genesis - Revelation, and are doing it with outside influence, we are going to learn the way of the outside influence, not what the bible tells us.

95% of the interpretations of the bible are interpreted not by those that practice them in the view of their interpretation given them by the Ruach (Spirit), but something that has been passed down by either their father's traditions, or the traditions of those they've found, or by what seminary tells them is the truth.

Hardly no one simply reads the bible without having any influence from modernized interpretation. There are some that do, and read it without influence from man-made tradition, and take the bible word for word, but those people never come to services that are found in 99% of churches today. They take up practices that God gave us before Moses, during Moses, and have and still exist long after Moses. There are some that come to some messed up conclusions, but so long as they don't use modern interpretations as their templates, and go off of specifically, and entirely what the bible says, their take on it will almost always reflect more ancient forms of following Messiah, not hardly any modern church practices will be found, especially considering when you see that a lot of practices observed in the church came about after Jesus, and after the disciples had been martyred, and after the 3rd-4th centuries to accommodate paganism and inspire a mixing of the cultures.

Do orthodox practices do this? I'm not sure really, I've done all of my research on catholicism, mormonism, witnesses, and the other christian sects, but not much on orthodoxy. I'd love to hear about some of the services observed in an orthodox setting though so I could compare them biblically alongside scripture, and research into their origin (who started them, where it started, why it started, etc.)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Two men are reading the same bible, one is always alone, the other is always in [high] Church services.

Which one is apt to see the services in the written scripture when any portion of one is mentioned?

Forgive me...

What about one who is reading at a church service, but not a "high" one?

Mark 13:14 Whenever yet ye may be seeing the abomination of the desolation having stood the-where not it is binding, (the one reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723) let him be understanding)!, then those in the Judea let be fleeing! into the mountains [Matt 24:15]

Revelation 1:3 Happy/blessed the one reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723) and the ones hearing the words of the prophecy and keepings in it having been written
for the time is nigh.

314. anaginosko from 303 and 1097; to know again, i.e. (by extension) to read:--read. [Used 32 times in NT.
303. ana an-ah' a primary preposition and adverb; properly, up; but (by extension) used (distributively) severally, or (locally) at (etc.):--and, apiece, by, each, every (man), in, through. In compounds (as a prefix) it often means (by implication) repetition, intensity, reversal, etc.
1097. ginosko ghin-oce'-ko a prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely) in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed):--allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) know(-ledge), perceived, be resolved, can

 

[Marvin Knox]

Excuse me, but have you ever seen the Divine Liturgy of St. John Crysostom?

No - but it appears to be very meaningful to all those who have.

Nor does there seem to be much wrong in it even if one is not Orthodox.

However some of the things said in the communion service concerning the bread and wine vis a vis the body and blood should give one pause if they have read the appropriated passages in the scripture.

The kissing of the priest's ring and the like are not warranted from the scriptures.

Other liturgical services and practices than the one you cite may well be more egregious if I attended them.

And I have read my Bible while in a church with Mass or Divine Liturgy going on, and there was never a chance that I would NOT go back.

I clearly said the following.

if he listened to the Holy Spirit while reading his bible

I can't speak to your relationship to the Holy Spirit. It may be or it may not be a born again and sealed relationship.

As I said, "it seems to me" that many of the things seen in "high" church services would tend to keep a born again person away in the future in many case.

Assuming that you are truly born again and are sealed with the Holy Spirit - your mileage obviously varies from what I see as likely response.

By the way - I enjoy a good amount of liturgy as well - so long as the practices and doctrines line up with what I see in the scriptures.

Also - I am more familiar with "high" church services related to RCC than Orthodox.

 

[W2L]

Every biblical example of a non-believer coming into the faith is always by being taught by another person. I don’t know of one biblical example of a non-believer coming into the faith strictly by reading scripture. Christianity is, was and shall always be communal.

Teachers lead me astray but scripture is a lamp for my feet.

Psalm 119:105New King James Version (NKJV 105 Your word is a lamp to my feet
And a light to my path

 

[W2L]

My favorite psalm. Psalms 23 The Lord is my shepherd;
I shall not want.
2 He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside the still waters.
3 He restores my soul;
He leads me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil;
For You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You anoint my head with oil;
My cup runs over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
All the days of my life;
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord
Forever.

 

[W2L]

1 Corinthians 1:31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”[a]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Two men are reading the same bible, one is always alone, the other is always in [high] Church services........

That would be the one who's high in church services. You'd have to be high to read that into your Bible. The early church had services resembling old Jewish synagogues, and scarcely resembled what you're thinking, but it's human nature to see the familiar in the obscure, or to read what you think you know into something that doesn't actually say that.

...but I'll forgive you for it this time. Don't let it happen again.

Speaking of "high", aren't there churches that burn incense during the service?
I found this interesting and may start burning it in my house....

Does Incense Get You High? - Zamnesia Blog

New research shows the age-old tradition of burning incense is more than just a religious symbol: The smoke lifts up the mood and fights depression.
Did you ever notice that unique calm instilled by the smell of incense? Now science suggests this may be no coincidence. It turns out the smoke of frankincense can measurably relieve the symptoms of anxiety and depression..........

Incense is right in middle between aromatherapy and smoking. Aromatherapy is based on smell and the power of the aromatic compounds to enhance one’s wellbeing.................

Rev 18:
4
And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.
11
“And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore:
13
“and cinnamon and incense, fragrant oil and frankincense, wine and oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men.

Could church incense be banned as 'legal high'?

Could church incense be banned as ‘legal high’?
Cathedral clerics lobby MPs to include exception for substances which set minds on a higher plane

 

[Monk Brendan]

However some of the things said in the communion service concerning the bread and wine vis a vis the body and blood should give one pause if they have read the appropriated passages in the scripture.

WHAT PART OF THIS IS MY BODY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

 

[Monk Brendan]

Latin Vulgate translation which was and still is the source of many of Rome's errors. There is a lot more that could be said regarding this development.

Excuse me, but Gutenburg's first Printing of the Bible WAS that Vulgate!

In a letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome explained the problem and proposed a solution: “If we are to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake?”

Jerome began translating in 382. He also preached strict asceticism and won many women to his way of life. Soon, however, accusations about his relationship to them and the charge that ascetic rigors led to one woman’s death caused Jerome to move from Rome to the Holy Land, shortly after Pope Damasus’s death in 384. He settled in Bethlehem, writing and studying, overseeing a monastery, and advising some of the women who had followed him from Rome.

After twenty-three years of labor, Jerome finished his translation in late 404 or 405. If twenty-three years seems like a long time for a translation, consider that Jerome was working alone. Also, he was churning out volumes of commentaries and other writings, and he involved himself in every theological battle of the day, contributing some eloquent, often caustic, letters.

In other words, Jerome made quite a few mistakes in his translation? No! He was a good and faithful man, a monk, like myself (although a lot more holy than I), and one of the best scholars of the age.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I as an Anglican use the liturgy as found in the Book of Common Prayer (1928

Which has been revised more than once, and not just to modernize the language. There were the 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1662 revisions, in England. Then in America, the 1928, which has been suppressed, by the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer. Why are YOU using an outdated edition?

 

[Monk Brendan]

That would be the one who's high in church services. You'd have to be high to read that into your Bible. The early church had services resembling old Jewish synagogues, and scarcely resembled what you're thinking, but it's human nature to see the familiar in the obscure, or to read what you think you know into something that doesn't actually say that.

That turns out not to be the case. I know you're thinking of a bunch of Jews, sitting on the floor in their blue jeans, listening to a preacher in a 3 piece polyester suit, and talking about how great a guy this Jesus was. Didn't happen!

What did Jesus teach the Apostles during the 40 days from His Resurrection to His Ascension? The Bible shows us in Acts 1:3 (“To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:” We know from the Gospel of John, that He did more than all of the books of the world would hold. (John 21:25) “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

With that in mind, He was teaching His Apostles how to properly liturgize, in other word, how to do what the Romans would call a basic Mass. It may have had SOME Jewish practices in it, but it was truly a Christian liturgy.

That basic Liturgy went out with the various Apostles, and they, in turn, taught others how do perform the Liturgy. As they traveled, others took up the same Liturgy, and translated it into their own language, and used their own ideas of beauty.

For instance, St. Thomas sailed to India, and made some converts, and taught them the Liturgy, which they translated into Mala-Yalam (the specific language of people from the southwest portion of the subcontinent.) Yes, the Portuguese came along, and tried to Latinize them, and for a while, it succeeded. But eventually, they went back to the Liturgy of Addai and Mari.

All of the Pre-Reformation Churches have differences in their liturgies, but all of them have MANY similarities.

 

[Marvin Knox]

WHAT PART OF THIS IS MY BODY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The part where He "supposedly" insinuated that any such remembrance of Him would require that His resurrected body and any blood therein would be broken and shed again and again at the behest of a special earthly priesthood who had authority on the earth to make it happen.

By the way - if you insist on taking this scripture literally - you need to recognize that the bread and wine present at the last supper was His body and blood - and that there is no scriptural mandate that says that some other bread and wine purchased 2000 years later at a grocery store on another continent by a special priesthood and used in a special church service would also be the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

This is purely human manufactured dogma and has no basis in the scriptures.