BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

---

Nobody is assigning divine qualities to the saints. The essence of God is His alone. "Greet one another with an holy kiss." (2nd Corinthians 13:12)

Quote:

---

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

---

To answer those questions, we ask the saints to be our prayer partners because...

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us" (Hebrews 12:1)

"there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15:10)

"And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God's people." (Revelation 5:8) (This one is extremely specific, that is the prayers of all Christians, those of the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant are offered to God by whom? They aren't emailed to prayers@yaweh.org and end up in God's inbox.)

Why you insist on saying the Christians from previous generations whose physical bodies have fallen asleep in the Lord are dead is beyond me. That is a Seventh Day Adventist belief (soul sleep) contrary to the Word of God. This really is the root of the difficulty you have with this teaching. Not because it is "not biblical".

As far as who is a generally regarded as a saint, it is those who meet the following criteria.

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."
(Hebrews 11:13)

"Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." (Hebrews 12:4) (those who did resist unto blood and were martyred for their faith)

Would be nice if Pope Leo put a stop to this stuff….

The Catholic Charities in Houston received 81% of its revenue from the government, then spent 59% of it resettling 'immigrants' https://t.co/at6n6TxKRl pic.twitter.com/JUG3baax16

— The Catholic Engineer (@TheCatholicEngr) June 11, 2025

LOL

Catholic Charities isn't doing it 'right'.

Meanwhile other Christian charities doing little in comparison.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Would be nice if Pope Leo put a stop to this stuff….

The Catholic Charities in Houston received 81% of its revenue from the government, then spent 59% of it resettling 'immigrants' https://t.co/at6n6TxKRl pic.twitter.com/JUG3baax16

— The Catholic Engineer (@TheCatholicEngr) June 11, 2025

---

It would be, but he won't. Everyone is calling him the "American Pope", ignoring the fact that he's Peruvian-American (a dual citizen), and that the majority of cardinals who voted for him were installed by Francis. The book I referenced here earlier gives a lot of insight into how conclaves have worked throughout history. Suffice it to say that the process is much more like a GOP/Democrat primary than one of the first eight ecumenical councils of Christendom.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

---

Nobody is assigning divine qualities to the saints. The essence of God is His alone. "Greet one another with an holy kiss." (2nd Corinthians 13:12)

Quote:

---

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

---

To answer those questions, we ask the saints to be our prayer partners because...

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us" (Hebrews 12:1)

"there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15:10)

"And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God's people." (Revelation 5:8) (This one is extremely specific, that is the prayers of all Christians, those of the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant are offered to God by whom? They aren't emailed to prayers@yaweh.org and end up in God's inbox.)

Why you insist on saying the Christians from previous generations whose physical bodies have fallen asleep in the Lord are dead is beyond me. That is a Seventh Day Adventist belief (soul sleep) contrary to the Word of God. This really is the root of the difficulty you have with this teaching. Not because it is "not biblical".

As far as who is a generally regarded as a saint, it is those who meet the following criteria.

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."
(Hebrews 11:13)

"Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." (Hebrews 12:4) (those who did resist unto blood and were martyred for their faith)

---

Omnisciently and omnipresently receiving multitudes of prayers simultaneously is most certainly a divine capacity.

Even if Paul were to be saying to "kiss" people in heaven (he's not, as any honest reading of the passage would indicate), still, you're not kissing them, you're kissing their image and statue - something God explicitly prohibits.

NONE of the verses you've provided say ANYTHING about us praying to people in heaven, or that people in heaven being able to receive our prayers. That is just pure eisegesis. Just because angels were holding bowls containing prayers does not mean those prayers were directed to them instead of to God. Your whole belief system is based on non sequiturs.

No one is saying that Christians of previous generations are "dead" spiritually. Clearly, the reference is to their status in regards to their earthly, physical life. This is merely your attempt at straw manning.

Biblically, a "saint' is any believer, not just those who are dead (physically) but living ones as well - Acts 9:13, Acts 9:32, Acts 26:10, Phillipians 4:21, Romans 16:2, Ephesians 4:12

You still can not find one single instance, in the Old Testament or New, of the people of God praying to departed believers, or bowing to and kissing graven or painted images of them, or their being taught this belief and practice anywhere in Scripture or in the history of the early church. In fact, as I've supported many times previously with historical evidence, the practice originated when Christianity became Romanized and compromised with Roman pagan worship. Rome had her pagan gods and goddesses of fertility, merchants, farming, etc that they prayed to for blessings in those areas... they were merely renamed the saints and carried over into Roman Catholicism, in order to convert the pagans and to ease their transition into Christianity.

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

Holding man-made tradition equal in authority as Scripture and claiming infallibility of religious leaders is exactly the formula behind a cult, and opens the door wide to unlimited, unreformable corruption of the original faith. It's precisely what has led Roman Catholicism to her many fatal errors. Where this path ultimately leads has been made no more clearer than the egregious blasphemy and idolatry of Mary, evidenced even by the highest leaders in all of Roman Catholicism, their popes. Can their papal declarations, regarding Mary as the "road we must travel to get to God", and that "through Mary we obtain all salvation" be any clearer of an indicator that Roman Catholicism is no longer Christian, but an ancient pagan goddess worship re-awakened?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Protestants and Orthodox do not make the claims about its leaders that the Roman Catholic Church makes about the office of the Papacy. Notice I say the "office of the Papacy", not Leo, Frances, or Alexander specifically. The issue that began in the Roman Patriarchate a few hundred years before the schism and found its fulfillment beginning in 1054 was the quest of this office for earthly power. As you observe, there are better and worse people in every walk of life but with regards to the office of the Papacy the individual occupant of the office is almost irrelevant. This book chronicles that problem over a span of around 700 years.

You see this sort of issue in modernity as a variety of heretical protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians seek to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the political left.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to its popes can never be reconciled with the words of Christ.

---

I was very close to visiting an Orthodox Church. I was legitimately attacked by a demon and protestants don't take it seriously.

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

"Venerating" can most certainly overlap into worship. The problem is that too many have lost sight of that.

I have to ask - what happened when you were attacked by a demon? If you care to share.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Protestants and Orthodox do not make the claims about its leaders that the Roman Catholic Church makes about the office of the Papacy. Notice I say the "office of the Papacy", not Leo, Frances, or Alexander specifically. The issue that began in the Roman Patriarchate a few hundred years before the schism and found its fulfillment beginning in 1054 was the quest of this office for earthly power. As you observe, there are better and worse people in every walk of life but with regards to the office of the Papacy the individual occupant of the office is almost irrelevant. This book chronicles that problem over a span of around 700 years.

You see this sort of issue in modernity as a variety of heretical protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians seek to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the political left.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to its popes can never be reconciled with the words of Christ.

---

I was very close to visiting an Orthodox Church. I was legitimately attacked by a demon and protestants don't take it seriously.

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

"Venerating" can most certainly overlap into worship. The problem is that too many have lost sight of that.

I have to ask - what happened when you were attacked by a demon? If you care to share.

---

My relationship with Jesus wasn't serious for a long time and I started getting pulled toward Jesus. I was also deep into metaphysics which was also leading me to the conclusion that God has to be real. In the same timeframe I started having lucid dreams and visions within those dreams. One dream was very complex and I won't go into details but God showed me that if I fully submit to him, I won't feel fear.

One night months later, I had a lucid nightmare I couldn't wake up from. I felt trapped in this dream and just couldn't wake up. I cried out to Jesus to help me and made a cross symbol with my fingers in my dream. I immediately woke up to a pissed off demon pushing my chest down repeatedly and making a hissing/growling sound that slowly faded. I was partially paralyzed but fully awake. I couldn't open my eyes, but I could move my fingers.

I'm certain Jesus cast that demon away from me. Emotionally I felt that the power of Jesus was infinite. I think this demon was allowed to attack me because it opened my eyes and opened my heart.

It's was so profound and real that I know Jesus is real. I don't have to believe.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

This has not been solved in 500 years, I don't expect to solve it on SicEm...

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Protestants and Orthodox do not make the claims about its leaders that the Roman Catholic Church makes about the office of the Papacy. Notice I say the "office of the Papacy", not Leo, Frances, or Alexander specifically. The issue that began in the Roman Patriarchate a few hundred years before the schism and found its fulfillment beginning in 1054 was the quest of this office for earthly power. As you observe, there are better and worse people in every walk of life but with regards to the office of the Papacy the individual occupant of the office is almost irrelevant. This book chronicles that problem over a span of around 700 years.

You see this sort of issue in modernity as a variety of heretical protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians seek to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the political left.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to its popes can never be reconciled with the words of Christ.

---

I was very close to visiting an Orthodox Church. I was legitimately attacked by a demon and protestants don't take it seriously.

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

"Venerating" can most certainly overlap into worship. The problem is that too many have lost sight of that.

I have to ask - what happened when you were attacked by a demon? If you care to share.

---

My relationship with Jesus wasn't serious for a long time and I started getting pulled toward Jesus. I was also deep into metaphysics which was also leading me to the conclusion that God has to be real. In the same timeframe I started having lucid dreams and visions within those dreams. One dream was very complex and I won't go into details but God showed me that if I fully submit to him, I won't feel fear.

One night months later, I had a lucid nightmare I couldn't wake up from. I felt trapped in this dream and just couldn't wake up. I cried out to Jesus to help me and made a cross symbol with my fingers in my dream. I immediately woke up to a pissed off demon pushing my chest down repeatedly and making a hissing/growling sound that slowly faded. I was partially paralyzed but fully awake. I couldn't open my eyes, but I could move my fingers.

I'm certain Jesus cast that demon away from me. Emotionally I felt that the power of Jesus was infinite. I think this demon was allowed to attack me because it opened my eyes and opened my heart.

It's was so profound and real that I know Jesus is real. I don't have to believe.

---

Wow. What a testimony. Spine chilling. I believe every word of it, and I fully agree God allowed that demonic attack to open your eyes and heart. Many people have that same or similar sleep paralysis experience where they wake up not being able to move and they either sense a presence or see a demon sitting or pushing down on their chest and they can't breathe. Many also report hissing and growling sounds like you heard. It happens to too many people for it not to be real demonic attacks. And the most remarkable thing about them is that when the person called out for Jesus, or just said Jesus' name, the demon would flee and the experience stopped. Interestingly, there's this UFO researcher guy who came to the conclusion that alien abductions are really spiritual attacks by demons, because in all his investigations he found that the "aliens" fled or lost interest in the person when the person called out for Jesus, and the "abduction" abruptly ended. And this researcher wasn't even a Christian, as I recall, but became one from his experience. There truly is power in the name of Jesus. I tell people that if they ever feel they ever get in trouble with an evil power, to call out for Jesus, and I mean actually saying his name out loud if you can. There really is power in it. Jesus truly does have ALL POWER over heaven and earth, as he said in Matthew 28:18, when even his NAME alone is powerful enough to destroy evil forces. How comforting it is, and what an incredible privilege we have in that we have DIRECT ACCESS to this person Jesus, who INVITES us to come to him directly at any time and in any situation. That's why I just can't understand why people feel the need to go to Mary or the saints and give glory and honor to them in their "veneration" of them when Jesus is due all of it. Even Mary and the saints would say the same. That feeling you have about saint and Mary "veneration" being idolatry - keep it. There's a reason you have that feeling. It's the Holy Spirit giving you discernment. Many of the people telling you that it's okay are the same ones who don't flinch one bit at the idea that Mary is "the road to God" and "through Mary we obtain all good things and all salvation" and other absolutely disgusting things like that. That should tell you everything.

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

It shouldn't be compelling reasons to anyone who follows the teaching of Jesus and his original apostles, because apostolic succesion is nowhere in Scripture. Regardless of which, it still brings us back to the original question - how do we know their teaching originated from Jesus and the original apostles through these successors? Through which successor? Do they know, for instance, from which successor, or from which line of successors, did the teaching of praying to Mary and the saints come from? Is it even demonstrable? Or is it just an amorphous claim? Because many of the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox church (praying to saints, icon veneration, Marian dogmas) are completely absent in the early church. You wouldn't think this would be the case if the practice was consistently passed from one successor to the other. In fact, the evidence shows that they come from, rather, Gnostic sources or pagan traditions. Now, if the argument is that these successors can infallibly reveal NEW Christian doctrine.... now we're nowhere near anything biblical. Welcome to cult territory. This is how the original message gets corrupted. That's how you get from "Jesus is the road to God" to "Mary is the road to God". You see the fruits. Obviously, something went seriously, seriously wrong, and this so-called "apostolic succession" model was obviously a complete failure.

The true form of "apostolic succession" is adherence to Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith for the church, because it is the only thing we KNOW is the original, preserved teaching of Jesus and his apostles. Therefore, any church that follows sola scriptura is truly suceeding the original apostles.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

This has not been solved in 500 years, I don't expect to solve it on SicEm...

---

Exactly

If you think true Christianity is defined by the Bible….your a Protestant

If you think true Christianity is actually defined by Church, its traditions, and its leaders (through apostolic succession)…then you are Catholic/Orthodox

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

It shouldn't be compelling reasons to anyone who follows the teaching of Jesus and his original apostles, because apostolic succesion is nowhere in Scripture. Regardless of which, it still brings us back to the original question - how do we know their teaching originated from Jesus and the original apostles through these successors? Through which successor? Do they know, for instance, from which successor, or from which line of successors...

---

You are right if course (lots of issues with that)

But of course they can counter how do we even know the Bible? After all it was the Roman Catholic Church-Eastern Orthodox Church (they had not split yet) and its bishops that created and defined the Bible itself.

How do we know what's a gnostic false gospel from a real one? Well we all essentially trust the Bishops of that time to define the Bible for us (what books are in and what books are out)

[The Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Carthage Councils (397 and 419) affirmed the canon]

few dioceses capture the catholic investment in industrial america like steubenville—in 1940 no one thought the mills and mines would ever close https://t.co/JOUzVUolOO

— rust belt roadtrip (@gmoult) June 11, 2025

A voice from 324 A.D:

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 25.The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.

"One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures."

"Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.

Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed 18 by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul."

"But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it."

So much for Sola Scriptura being handed down from Mt. Sinai. Mind you that I am not saying the Bible isn't inspired or critically important. It is.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

This has not been solved in 500 years, I don't expect to solve it on SicEm...

---

Exactly

If you think true Christianity is defined by the Bible….your a Protestant

If you think true Christianity is actually defined by Church, its traditions, and its leaders (through apostolic succession)…then you are Catholic/Orthodox

---

I think Protestants don't give Catholics enough credit on the importance of scripture and the Gospels. Interpretations and execution may differ, but pretty much everything the Catholic Church does have scriptural basis.

The question is the interpretation of either the reconciliation or the execution. Many Protestants don't agree with how the Catholic Church interprets it or how the Catholics put it in practice. Great thing there are more denominations. I see that as the Holy Spirit at work. God recognizing that everyone processes information differently and has different needs, so there are different denominations leading to God. But, that is not hard core enough for some...

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

It shouldn't be compelling reasons to anyone who follows the teaching of Jesus and his original apostles, because apostolic succesion is nowhere in Scripture. Regardless of which, it still brings us back to the original question - how do we know their teaching originated from Jesus and the original apostles through these successors? Through which successor? Do they know, for instance, from which successor, or from which line of successors...

---

You are right if course (lots of issues with that)

But of course they can counter how do we even know the Bible? After all it was the Roman Catholic Church-Eastern Orthodox Church (they had not split yet) and its bishops that created and defined the Bible itself.

How do we know what's a gnostic false gospel from a real one? Well we all essentially trust the Bishops of that time to define the Bible for us (what books are in and what books are out)

[The Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Carthage Councils (397 and 419) affirmed the canon]

---

The Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox churches did not create the Bible. They merely affirmed what had already been deemed scripture by the people of God since the first century - the writings of the original apostles. Through the original apostles (and original first hand witnesses like Luke), the Holy Spirit wrote Scripture, and the people of God recognized it as such. Church councils did not "vote" who were the original apostles, they were original and divinely inspired in their own right. And thus church councils did not "vote" for which books were canon scripture.

The early church knew which gospels were true and which weren't based on whether it was authored by an original apostle, and whether it's teachings aligned with what they already knew what the original apostles taught. The same thing we should be doing today. Hence, sola scriptura.

But even if we humor Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox and assume that they did indeed create the Bible, it isn't an effective counter argument, it actually makes things worse for them - it would mean that they can't even keep their teachings in line with the scripture that they themselves created.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

This has not been solved in 500 years, I don't expect to solve it on SicEm...

---

Exactly

If you think true Christianity is defined by the Bible….your a Protestant

If you think true Christianity is actually defined by Church, its traditions, and its leaders (through apostolic succession)…then you are Catholic/Orthodox

---

I think Protestants don't give Catholics enough credit on the importance of scripture and the Gospels. Interpretations and execution may differ, but pretty much everything the Catholic Church does have scriptural basis.

The question is the interpretation of either the reconciliation or the execution. Many Protestants don't agree with how the Catholic Church interprets it or how the Catholics put it in practice. Great thing there are more denominations. I see that as the Holy Spirit at work. God recognizing that everyone processes information differently and has different needs, so there are different denominations leading to God. But, that is not hard core enough for some...

---

How you and others blindly and blithely gloss over how your church's "interpretations" have led you to accept rank heresy and idolatry as if nothing is wrong, is absolutely beyond me and anyone else who wants to love and honor Jesus.

With as little discernment as you apparently have, and your view that opposing such damnable beliefs like Mary being the "road to God" is too "hard core", you are really in a lot of danger.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

Holding man-made tradition equal in authority as Scripture and claiming infallibility of religious leaders is exactly the formula behind a cult, and opens the door wide to unlimited, unreformable corruption of the original faith. It's precisely what has led Roman Catholicism to her many fatal errors. Where this path ultimately leads has been made no more clearer than the egregious blasphemy and idolatry of Mary, evidenced even by the highest leaders in all of Roman Catholicism, their popes. Can their papal declarations, regarding Mary as the "road we must travel to get to God", and that "through Mary we obtain all salvation" be any clearer of an indicator that Roman Catholicism is no longer Christian, but an ancient pagan goddess worship re-awakened?

---

Bingo.

Realitybites said:

---

A voice from 324 A.D:

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 25.The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.

"One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures."

"Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.

Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed 18 by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul."

"But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it."

So much for Sola Scriptura being handed down from Mt. Sinai. Mind you that I am not saying the Bible isn't inspired or critically important. It is.

---

Your last sentence made me laugh. You author a post essentially attacking the authenticity of scripture and downplaying its importance and then say it's inspired by God and critically important.

Mmkay.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

It shouldn't be compelling reasons to anyone who follows the teaching of Jesus and his original apostles, because apostolic succesion is nowhere in Scripture. Regardless of which, it still brings us back to the original question - how do we know their teaching originated from Jesus and the original apostles through these successors? Through which successor? Do they know, for instance, from which successor, or from which line of successors...

---

You are right if course (lots of issues with that)

But of course they can counter how do we even know the Bible? After all it was the Roman Catholic Church-Eastern Orthodox Church (they had not split yet) and its bishops that created and defined the Bible itself.

How do we know what's a gnostic false gospel from a real one? Well we all essentially trust the Bishops of that time to define the Bible for us (what books are in and what books are out)

[The Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Carthage Councils (397 and 419) affirmed the canon]

---

1. The Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox churches did not create the Bible. They merely affirmed what had already been deemed scripture by the people of God since the first century - the writings of the original apostles. Through the original apostles (and original first hand witnesses like Luke), the Holy Spirit wrote Scripture, and the people of God recognized it as such. Church councils did not "vote" who were the original apostles,



2. But even if we humor Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox and assume that they did indeed create the Bible, it isn't an effective counter argument, it actually makes things worse for them - it would mean that they can't even keep their teachings in line with the scripture that they themselves created.

---

1. I agree you are right on that....of course we have to admit they did deem what books could stay in.

As you previously pointed out there were some early Christianity communities using books we would classify as gnostic

Works like the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Nicodemus get excluded for their content-beliefs or because of the lack of authority in their authorship/history.

2. Yes again, but that just gets us back to the major difference between these branches of Christianity (Protestant vs R. Catholic/E. Orthodox)

The apostolic Churches do not just follow what is in the Bible.....but what their Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Doctors of the Church, and traditions also teach to be Christian doctrine and practice

So for instance the Bible does not say Mary was a perpetual Virginity (a Virgin all her life after giving birth to Christ). So most Protestants don't believe she was all her life.

But that is a belief that E. Orthodox and R. Catholics have....because their leaders declared it to be so.

[The Second Council of Constantinople, also known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council, officially declared Mary's perpetual virginity in 553 AD. ]

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

I think a big part of the problem is that the scriptures clearly forbid conversing with those who have physically died.
Also, if veneration of the saints were truly an important part of Christianity, then why isn't it ever seen in the epistles?
Why is no one discussing their prayers to Stephen, who was martyred decades before some of the New Testament letters?
It's hard to believe that Jesus intended to correct the OT teachings about talking to the dead.... when He never addressed the topic. Jesus directly addressed & corrected many OT teachings... did He forget this one? Jesus taught his followers to pray directly to The Father. He never taught them to pray to his mother or one another after they died.
Surely if this was the plan for the church, Jesus would have discussed it with them. He foretold of the coming of the Holy Spirit. He told them about his returning. He told them about the destruction of the temple. He told them about the coming persecutions. He instructed them on how to pray, how to minister to the poor, how to take care of widows & orphans, how to partake in communion (no mention there of priests FYI).... but he somehow forgot to instruct then on how to pray to the dead?
That seems to be a huge mistake by Jesus... or maybe it wasn't a mistake at all. No reason to correct something that doesn't need to be corrected.

By the way, I do honor my father & mother... but I don't build shrines to them, pray to them, or ask them to give me the blessings that can only be given by God Himself.

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

I think a big part of the problem is that the scriptures clearly forbid conversing with those who have physically died.
Also, if veneration of the saints were truly an important part of Christianity, then why isn't it ever seen in the epistles?
Why is no one discussing their prayers to Stephen, who was martyred decades before some of the New Testament letters?
It's hard to believe that Jesus intended to correct the OT teachings about talking to the dead.... when He never addressed the topic. Jesus directly addressed & corrected many OT teachings... did He forget this one? Jesus taught his followers to pray directly to The Father. He never taught them to pray to his mother or one another after they died.
Surely if this was the plan for the church, Jesus would have discussed it with them. He foretold of the coming of the Holy Spirit. He told them about his returning. He told them about the destruction of the temple. He told them about the coming persecutions. He instructed them on how to pray, how to minister to the poor, how to take care of widows & orphans, how to partake in communion (no mention there of priests FYI).... but he somehow forgot to instruct then on how to pray to the dead?
That seems to be a huge mistake by Jesus... or maybe it wasn't a mistake at all. No reason to correct something that doesn't need to be corrected.

By the way, I do honor my father & mother... but I don't build shrines to them, pray to them, or ask them to give me the blessings that can only be given by God Himself.

---

My question is - Catholicism is voluntary. You guys don't agree and do not belong, cool. Your church suits your needs. More power to ya... I don't think I have ever seen a Catholic or the Catholic Church attack the Protestants. Pretty much leave them be.

So, why the constant badgering? Talking scripture, wouldn't this fall under "planks"? Focus on yourselves and your sins. This is a Pope Leo thread, yet you guys seem to love coming here to say you are right and the Catholic Church is wrong. Why? You don't like Catholic believes, don't come in a Pope Leo thread. Guarantee you start a Tammy Faye Baker thread, you won't hear a peep...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

It shouldn't be compelling reasons to anyone who follows the teaching of Jesus and his original apostles, because apostolic succesion is nowhere in Scripture. Regardless of which, it still brings us back to the original question - how do we know their teaching originated from Jesus and the original apostles through these successors? Through which successor? Do they know, for instance, from which successor, or from which line of successors...

---

You are right if course (lots of issues with that)

But of course they can counter how do we even know the Bible? After all it was the Roman Catholic Church-Eastern Orthodox Church (they had not split yet) and its bishops that created and defined the Bible itself.

How do we know what's a gnostic false gospel from a real one? Well we all essentially trust the Bishops of that time to define the Bible for us (what books are in and what books are out)

[The Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Carthage Councils (397 and 419) affirmed the canon]

---

The early church knew which gospels were true and which weren't based on whether it was authored by an original apostle, and whether it's teachings aligned with what they already knew what the original apostles taught.

---

Another way to say the same thing: the early church knew which gospels were true and which weren't based on whether it was authored by an original apostle and whether its teachings aligned with tradition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Protestants and Orthodox do not make the claims about its leaders that the Roman Catholic Church makes about the office of the Papacy. Notice I say the "office of the Papacy", not Leo, Frances, or Alexander specifically. The issue that began in the Roman Patriarchate a few hundred years before the schism and found its fulfillment beginning in 1054 was the quest of this office for earthly power. As you observe, there are better and worse people in every walk of life but with regards to the office of the Papacy the individual occupant of the office is almost irrelevant. This book chronicles that problem over a span of around 700 years.

You see this sort of issue in modernity as a variety of heretical protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians seek to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the political left.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to its popes can never be reconciled with the words of Christ.

---

I was very close to visiting an Orthodox Church. I was legitimately attacked by a demon and protestants don't take it seriously.

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

"Venerating" can most certainly overlap into worship. The problem is that too many have lost sight of that.

I have to ask - what happened when you were attacked by a demon? If you care to share.

---

My relationship with Jesus wasn't serious for a long time and I started getting pulled toward Jesus. I was also deep into metaphysics which was also leading me to the conclusion that God has to be real. In the same timeframe I started having lucid dreams and visions within those dreams. One dream was very complex and I won't go into details but God showed me that if I fully submit to him, I won't feel fear.

One night months later, I had a lucid nightmare I couldn't wake up from. I felt trapped in this dream and just couldn't wake up. I cried out to Jesus to help me and made a cross symbol with my fingers in my dream. I immediately woke up to a pissed off demon pushing my chest down repeatedly and making a hissing/growling sound that slowly faded. I was partially paralyzed but fully awake. I couldn't open my eyes, but I could move my fingers.

I'm certain Jesus cast that demon away from me. Emotionally I felt that the power of Jesus was infinite. I think this demon was allowed to attack me because it opened my eyes and opened my heart.

It's was so profound and real that I know Jesus is real. I don't have to believe.

---

Wow. What a testimony. Spine chilling. I believe every word of it, and I fully agree God allowed that demonic attack to open your eyes and heart. Many people have that same or similar sleep paralysis experience where they wake up not being able to move and they either sense a presence or see a demon sitting or pushing down on their chest and they can't breathe. Many also report hissing and growling sounds like you heard. It happens to too many people for it not to be real demonic attacks. And the most remarkable thing about them is that when the person called out for Jesus, or just said Jesus' name, the demon would flee and the experience stopped. Interestingly, there's this UFO researcher guy who came to the conclusion that alien abductions are really spiritual attacks by demons, because in all his investigations he found that the "aliens" fled or lost interest in the person when the person called out for Jesus, and the "abduction" abruptly ended. And this researcher wasn't even a Christian, as I recall, but became one from his experience. There truly is power in the name of Jesus. I tell people that if they ever feel they ever get in trouble with an evil power, to call out for Jesus, and I mean actually saying his name out loud if you can. There really is power in it. Jesus truly does have ALL POWER over heaven and earth, as he said in Matthew 28:18, when even his NAME alone is powerful enough to destroy evil forces. How comforting it is, and what an incredible privilege we have in that we have DIRECT ACCESS to this person Jesus, who INVITES us to come to him directly at any time and in any situation. That's why I just can't understand why people feel the need to go to Mary or the saints and give glory and honor to them in their "veneration" of them when Jesus is due all of it. Even Mary and the saints would say the same. That feeling you have about saint and Mary "veneration" being idolatry - keep it. There's a reason you have that feeling. It's the Holy Spirit giving you discernment. Many of the people telling you that it's okay are the same ones who don't flinch one bit at the idea that Mary is "the road to God" and "through Mary we obtain all good things and all salvation" and other absolutely disgusting things like that. That should tell you everything.

---

The growl was very loud and it repeated like a broken record. I was terrified and at the same time I was like "is this really happening?!".

The only other experience I've had was one night I had racing thoughts or brain chatter and felt extremely anxious. I also felt like I was struggling with temptation at the time. I prayed to out Jesus in complete fear and all the noise in my head turned off and I heard God say "Withstand". It was audible but in a manner I can't quite explain, it took over my entire mind and it was unbelievably powerful. It was lighting fast too and I felt calm right after. I also saw a picture of the word "Withstand" in my mind as he said it and the letters rearranged into "Stand with". It was Jesus telling me to withstand temptation and stand with him. It was just one word and I knew exactly what to take away from it.

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

It shouldn't be compelling reasons to anyone who follows the teaching of Jesus and his original apostles, because apostolic succesion is nowhere in Scripture. Regardless of which, it still brings us back to the original question - how do we know their teaching originated from Jesus and the original apostles through these successors? Through which successor? Do they know, for instance, from which successor, or from which line of successors...

---

You are right if course (lots of issues with that)

But of course they can counter how do we even know the Bible? After all it was the Roman Catholic Church-Eastern Orthodox Church (they had not split yet) and its bishops that created and defined the Bible itself.

How do we know what's a gnostic false gospel from a real one? Well we all essentially trust the Bishops of that time to define the Bible for us (what books are in and what books are out)

[The Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Carthage Councils (397 and 419) affirmed the canon]

---

1. The Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox churches did not create the Bible. They merely affirmed what had already been deemed scripture by the people of God since the first century - the writings of the original apostles. Through the original apostles (and original first hand witnesses like Luke), the Holy Spirit wrote Scripture, and the people of God recognized it as such. Church councils did not "vote" who were the original apostles,



2. But even if we humor Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox and assume that they did indeed create the Bible, it isn't an effective counter argument, it actually makes things worse for them - it would mean that they can't even keep their teachings in line with the scripture that they themselves created.

---

2. Yes again, but that just gets us back to the major difference between these branches of Christianity (Protestant vs R. Catholic/E. Orthodox)

The apostolic Churches do not just follow what is in the Bible.....but what their Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Doctors of the Church, and traditions also teach to be Christian doctrine and practice

So for instance the Bible does not say Mary was a perpetual Virginity (a Virgin all her life after giving birth to Christ). So most Protestants don't believe she was all her life.

But that is a belief that E. Orthodox and R. Catholics have....because their leaders declared it to be so.

[The Second Council of Constantinople, also known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council, officially declared Mary's perpetual virginity in 553 AD. ]

---

And that is precisely their problem, as explained. That's how you can depart from true Christianity and align with the whims of man. That's how you go from "Jesus is the road to God and all salvation" which was preached by Jesus himself and the original apostles..... to "Mary is the road to God and all salvation" being taught by their church leaders. And if you question them on it, you're out of the church which means loss of salvation, because only they "hold the keys". Fear of agonizing hell and/or purgatory keeps you in line. Congratulations, you're now part of a cult.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

It shouldn't be compelling reasons to anyone who follows the teaching of Jesus and his original apostles, because apostolic succesion is nowhere in Scripture. Regardless of which, it still brings us back to the original question - how do we know their teaching originated from Jesus and the original apostles through these successors? Through which successor? Do they know, for instance, from which successor, or from which line of successors...

---

You are right if course (lots of issues with that)

But of course they can counter how do we even know the Bible? After all it was the Roman Catholic Church-Eastern Orthodox Church (they had not split yet) and its bishops that created and defined the Bible itself.

How do we know what's a gnostic false gospel from a real one? Well we all essentially trust the Bishops of that time to define the Bible for us (what books are in and what books are out)

[The Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Carthage Councils (397 and 419) affirmed the canon]

---

The early church knew which gospels were true and which weren't based on whether it was authored by an original apostle, and whether it's teachings aligned with what they already knew what the original apostles taught.

---

Another way to say the same thing: the early church knew which gospels were true and which weren't based on whether it was authored by an original apostle and whether its teachings aligned with tradition.

---

Yes.... their tradition. Not some unknown-sourced tradition hundreds of years later that can't be traced back to them. And everything we know of the tradition of Jesus and his original apostles today is in Scripture, and nowhere else.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Protestants and Orthodox do not make the claims about its leaders that the Roman Catholic Church makes about the office of the Papacy. Notice I say the "office of the Papacy", not Leo, Frances, or Alexander specifically. The issue that began in the Roman Patriarchate a few hundred years before the schism and found its fulfillment beginning in 1054 was the quest of this office for earthly power. As you observe, there are better and worse people in every walk of life but with regards to the office of the Papacy the individual occupant of the office is almost irrelevant. This book chronicles that problem over a span of around 700 years.

You see this sort of issue in modernity as a variety of heretical protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians seek to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the political left.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to its popes can never be reconciled with the words of Christ.

---

I was very close to visiting an Orthodox Church. I was legitimately attacked by a demon and protestants don't take it seriously.

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

"Venerating" can most certainly overlap into worship. The problem is that too many have lost sight of that.

I have to ask - what happened when you were attacked by a demon? If you care to share.

---

My relationship with Jesus wasn't serious for a long time and I started getting pulled toward Jesus. I was also deep into metaphysics which was also leading me to the conclusion that God has to be real. In the same timeframe I started having lucid dreams and visions within those dreams. One dream was very complex and I won't go into details but God showed me that if I fully submit to him, I won't feel fear.

One night months later, I had a lucid nightmare I couldn't wake up from. I felt trapped in this dream and just couldn't wake up. I cried out to Jesus to help me and made a cross symbol with my fingers in my dream. I immediately woke up to a pissed off demon pushing my chest down repeatedly and making a hissing/growling sound that slowly faded. I was partially paralyzed but fully awake. I couldn't open my eyes, but I could move my fingers.

I'm certain Jesus cast that demon away from me. Emotionally I felt that the power of Jesus was infinite. I think this demon was allowed to attack me because it opened my eyes and opened my heart.

It's was so profound and real that I know Jesus is real. I don't have to believe.

---

Wow. What a testimony. Spine chilling. I believe every word of it, and I fully agree God allowed that demonic attack to open your eyes and heart. Many people have that same or similar sleep paralysis experience where they wake up not being able to move and they either sense a presence or see a demon sitting or pushing down on their chest and they can't breathe. Many also report hissing and growling sounds like you heard. It happens to too many people for it not to be real demonic attacks. And the most remarkable thing about them is that when the person called out for Jesus, or just said Jesus' name, the demon would flee and the experience stopped. Interestingly, there's this UFO researcher guy who came to the conclusion that alien abductions are really spiritual attacks by demons, because in all his investigations he found that the "aliens" fled or lost interest in the person when the person called out for Jesus, and the "abduction" abruptly ended. And this researcher wasn't even a Christian, as I recall, but became one from his experience. There truly is power in the name of Jesus. I tell people that if they ever feel they ever get in trouble with an evil power, to call out for Jesus, and I mean actually saying his name out loud if you can. There really is power in it. Jesus truly does have ALL POWER over heaven and earth, as he said in Matthew 28:18, when even his NAME alone is powerful enough to destroy evil forces. How comforting it is, and what an incredible privilege we have in that we have DIRECT ACCESS to this person Jesus, who INVITES us to come to him directly at any time and in any situation. That's why I just can't understand why people feel the need to go to Mary or the saints and give glory and honor to them in their "veneration" of them when Jesus is due all of it. Even Mary and the saints would say the same. That feeling you have about saint and Mary "veneration" being idolatry - keep it. There's a reason you have that feeling. It's the Holy Spirit giving you discernment. Many of the people telling you that it's okay are the same ones who don't flinch one bit at the idea that Mary is "the road to God" and "through Mary we obtain all good things and all salvation" and other absolutely disgusting things like that. That should tell you everything.

---

The growl was very loud and it repeated like a broken record. I was terrified and at the same time I was like "is this really happening?!".

The only other experience I've had was one night I had racing thoughts or brain chatter and felt extremely anxious. I also felt like I was struggling with temptation at the time. I prayed to out Jesus in complete fear and all the noise in my head turned off and I heard God say "Withstand". It was audible but in a manner I can't quite explain, it took over my entire mind and it was unbelievably powerful. It was lighting fast too and I felt calm right after. I also saw a picture of the word "Withstand" in my mind as he said it and the letters rearranged into "Stand with". It was Jesus telling me to withstand temptation and stand with him. It was just one word and I knew exactly what to take away from it.

---

What did the demon look like?

That "withstand" message is incredible and really must have come from God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Dodging - I'll take your word for it. You certain used the Red Herring fallacy, but I digress ...


Did bibles exist prior the Council of Trent that contained the Deuterocanonical books?

---

You obviously don't know what a red herring fallacy is, either. In fact, the sheer irony of it all is that you are the one using the red herring, by steering the discussion towards this irrelevant point about what Catholics have in their bibles, and when the apocryphal books were added. Yes, early Catholic bibles contained the apocryphal books, but the question is one of canonicity, not what was bound together in a book - the presence of the apocrypha in early Catholic bibles has no bearing on the fact that from the time of Jesus to Jerome, and then from Jerome until the 1500's, the apocryphal books were NOT considered part of canon by the majority of even Roman Catholic fathers, theologians, and scholars, and that the apocryphal books were officially added to Roman Catholic canon in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. The prevailing attitude in Jerome's time, and subsequent to Jerome, was the same attitude of the Jews during Jesus' time - the apocryphal books were considered very important, and useful for reading and learning from... but they were NOT considered canon. The Roman Catholic church officially added the apocryphal books to their canon in the 1500's. This is just a fact.

---

Actually, it is shown that Jerome changed his opinion twice in his life. He originally accepted the Deuterocanonical, for only a short period of his life, did he reject the Deuterocanon as canon. When copies of some of those were discovered, he changed his opinion on the Deuterocanon and considered it as canon.

It is false to say that a majority of the Church fathers didn't believe that Deuterocanon was canon. A wide variety of opinions existed concerning what was canon.

We didn't settle the canon by what language in which the books were written.
We didn't settle the canon by what the Church father stated when stating their opinions.

We go by what the Catholic Church determined is canon.

There were no writings or letters until decades after Jesus. There was no settle NT until the 4th Century.

Jesus gave us the Church. The Church complied the Bible that God gave us.

You are struggling to admit it, but you know that the Deuterocanon was in EVERY bible until Martin Luther removed those books. If you remember correctly, he wanted to remove books of the NT as well.

Your posts want people to believe that a 66-book bible existed until the Church "added 7 books" during the Council of Trent. The books were ALWAYS there.

The Catholic Church only made it OFFICIAL during the Council of Trent because Luther, et al, removed the Deuterocanon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your claim that it was "made up in the 16th century" is wholly without evidence, and it defies basic reason and common sense. Given that NONE of the books of the New Testament say that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and they even say that Jesus had "adelphos", the natural meaning of which suggests Jesus had actual siblings, it is FAR from unlikely that the early Christians took scripture to mean what it naturally suggests - that Mary had other children. Given that there is NO evidence whatsoever in the early church that Christians believed Mary was a virgin throughout her whole life, and that the only time it really appears is THREE CENTURIES later in the Church, the idea that the belief that Mary was NOT perpetually a virgin was "invented" 1600 years later, completely out of the blue, never even before believed much less thought of, is not based in reality. In fact, given that the tradition of Mary's lifelong virginity first appeared in Gnostic texts, it is much more likely that the early Christians rejected the notion, given that it originated in a heresy.

---

It was a positive and consistent belief for 1500 years. The denial of her perpetual virginity didn't happen until the 16th century.

Actually, the heresy is upon those that reject it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Should the Church accept and support same sex marriage?

---

I hope that you don't mind if I answer.

NO, the Church should NOT accept NOR support same-sex marriage.

AND, she NEVER will.

---

Why do you think FlBear won't answer, even after repeated attempts at asking?

---

Don't know. Don't care. I was only responding to provide what the Church teaches.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jerome is offering NO positive evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity. His argument, like yours, is entirely based on the fact that "it can not be ruled out". You can not support a positive claim with negative evidence.

---

He perpetual virginity has been consistently taught until it was first rejected in the 16th century. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed her perpetual virginity as well.

It wasn't until later, when protestants wanted to distance themselves from the True Church was it first denied.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

His argument about the "until" falls short because he does not address the difference in the natural implication of a phrase containing "until" between one that makes postive directives, and one that makes a negative one, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

---

Do you find it ironic that you would argue with the man that translated the bible into Latin? What are your qualifications again?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Firstborn" can mean only child, yes, but together with the fact that Scripture cites and even names Jesus' "brothers", the natural meaning of these terms suggests Mary had other children and Jesus had real, actual siblings, not "cousins" or "brothers" of different mothers.

---

Once again, you are trying to argue against Jerome who wrote an entire treatise disproving your false assertions. Your belief was a man-made belief created after 1500 years.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You keep saying it's in the Bible. It's NOWHERE in the Bible. You can craft whatever allegory or symbolism using scripture, but that will never be positive evidence. Any belief can be constructed using this method. And the kicker here, is that the Roman Catholic Church REQUIRES this belief for salvation essentially, even if it is nowhere in Scripture. You would think that one's eternal fate should be tied to something a LOT more explicit in Scripture rather than to the understanding of arcane puzzles: "Oh, you believed in me, and trusted in me for your salvation", says Jesus, "but you didn't believe in Mary's perpetual virginity? Didn't you see it? Right there, where it says I entered through the gate and then closed it, so that no one else may enter! Wasn't that obvious? Tsk, Tsk. Well, sorry, to Hell you go!"

---

We may as well agree to disagree. I can continue to present biblical references, but you will never accept them because you are locked into a false paradigm.

You are hell-bent on the unbiblical belief of sola scriptura. Until you realize that it is false, it will be difficult for you to accept the truth.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will one day soften your heart to see the real truth.

Mary is your mother too! Jesus gave her to us (metaphorically) and to the Beloved Disciple in John 19:26 when he said, "Woman, behold your son."

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Dodging - I'll take your word for it. You certain used the Red Herring fallacy, but I digress ...


Did bibles exist prior the Council of Trent that contained the Deuterocanonical books?

---

You obviously don't know what a red herring fallacy is, either. In fact, the sheer irony of it all is that you are the one using the red herring, by steering the discussion towards this irrelevant point about what Catholics have in their bibles, and when the apocryphal books were added. Yes, early Catholic bibles contained the apocryphal books, but the question is one of canonicity, not what was bound together in a book - the presence of the apocrypha in early Catholic bibles has no bearing on the fact that from the time of Jesus to Jerome, and then from Jerome until the 1500's, the apocryphal books were NOT considered part of canon by the majority of even Roman Catholic fathers, theologians, and scholars, and that the apocryphal books were officially added to Roman Catholic canon in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. The prevailing attitude in Jerome's time, and subsequent to Jerome, was the same attitude of the Jews during Jesus' time - the apocryphal books were considered very important, and useful for reading and learning from... but they were NOT considered canon. The Roman Catholic church officially added the apocryphal books to their canon in the 1500's. This is just a fact.

---

Actually, it is shown that Jerome changed his opinion twice in his life. He originally accepted the Deuterocanonical, for only a short period of his life, did he reject the Deuterocanon as canon. When copies of some of those were discovered, he changed his opinion on the Deuterocanon and considered it as canon.

It is false to say that a majority of the Church fathers didn't believe that Deuterocanon was canon. A wide variety of opinions existed concerning what was canon.

We didn't settle the canon by what language in which the books were written.
We didn't settle the canon by what the Church father stated when stating their opinions.

We go by what the Catholic Church determined is canon.

There were no writings or letters until decades after Jesus. There was no settle NT until the 4th Century.

Jesus gave us the Church. The Church complied the Bible that God gave us.

You are struggling to admit it, but you know that the Deuterocanon was in EVERY bible until Martin Luther removed those books. If you remember correctly, he wanted to remove books of the NT as well.

Your posts want people to believe that a 66-book bible existed until the Church "added 7 books" during the Council of Trent. The books were ALWAYS there.

The Catholic Church only made it OFFICIAL during the Council of Trent because Luther, et al, removed the Deuterocanon.

---

Cite your evidence that Jerome finally considered it canon.

The plain and simple fact is, as I've shown you before, that from the time of Jerome up until the 1500's the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars did NOT view the apocryphal books as canon. You can deny this all you want, you're not going to make this magically untrue.

I'm not struggling to admit anything. You're trying to argue that since Bibles contained the apocryphal books, that it meant they were considered canon. Again, the majority view during most of Christian history thought otherwise. Those books were in Bibles, but they weren't considered canon. There's a difference between being "in" a Bible, and being canon scripture. You are trying to lump them together, which is fallacious as I've repeatedly explained.

"The books were always there" - they were not present in the earliest known Christian canon lists (Melito's canon, Bryennios' list). Even Roman Catholic councils approved canon lists that did not contain the apocryphal books. You are arguing against history. Luther didn't remove what was already considered "removed" by the earliest canon lists, the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars from the time of Jerome until the 1500's, and even Roman Catholic councils themselves.