Is veneration of saints Biblical?

[Carry_Your_Name]

There are great flaws in your statement that the book/Bible are the only way to know God. How can that possibly be? In fact, when Jesus ascended to heaven, He didn't leave a book, He left a Church to spread the Word of God.

In fact, there was no accepted Bible until 300 years after Jesus ascended, Old Testament combined with the Canon of the New Testament. Even then Bibles were scarce and not available to but a handful of people because they had to be hand copied, a very tedious and elongated project to even copy one Bible. And you say this book is the only way to know God, you obviously aren't thinking clearly. There were few bibles, but the fact is that, until the early 18th century over 90% of the world's population couldn't read as they didn't have public schools then. Most people were peasant farmers and had no education.

Even at the advent of the printing press, when Bibles could be mass produced, few people could read.

So, for about 1700 years after Christ ascended, people didn't have access to a Bible and/or they couldn't read, and you say that the Bible is the only way to know God.

Your assertion lacks common sense.

It is you who are ignorant. This might be a shokcer to you, that Paul didn't preach the miracles and teachings of Jesus, he was preaching how Jesus fulfilled the Torah and OT prophecies. Stephen the first martyr didn't even explicitly mention Jesus by name, in his address he gave a recap of the entire OT. Most early churches had the OT scrolls, and it was written in Acts 17:11 that the brethrens in Berea put Paul's sermons in scrunity through the lens of their Scriptures. So in fact, the bible has several THOUSAND years of history instead of several hundred as you think.

 

[arthurfleminger]

It is you who are ignorant. This might be a shokcer to you, that Paul didn't preach the miracles and teachings of Jesus, he was preaching how Jesus fulfilled the Torah and OT prophecies. Stephen the first martyr didn't even explicitly mention Jesus by name, in his address he gave a recap of the entire OT. Most early churches had the OT scrolls, and it was written in Acts 17:11 that the brethrens in Berea put Paul's sermons in scrunity through the lens of their Scriptures. So in fact, the bible has several THOUSAND years of history instead of several hundred as you think.

Again, you show your ignorance of the Bible. The Bible consists of both the Old and New Testament. The Canon of the New Testament wasn't approved until 300 years after Jesus ascension. Even then,, for the next 1200 years Bibles were rare and hand copied. And for 1800 years after Christ's ascension few people could read and write. So how could the Bible have been the only source of God's truth? It didn't just fall out of the sky and the truth of Christianity survived many centuries without the Bible being accessible.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Again, you show your ignorance of the Bible. The Bible consists of both the Old and New Testament. The Canon of the New Testament wasn't approved until 300 years after Jesus ascension. Even then,, for the next 1200 years Bibles were rare and hand copied. And for 1800 years after Christ's ascension few people could read and write. So how could the Bible have been the only source of God's truth? It didn't just fall out of the sky and the truth of Christianity survived many centuries without the Bible being accessible.

That’s because the truth of God was monopolized by the Catholic Church as though it was their intellectual property and they were the intermediate between God and man, even though the veil was torn. That long period was called the DARK ages for a reason. However, it is written that in the last days knowledge will increase and people will run to and fro, that was referring to the fulfillment of the Great Commission, the preaching of the gospel to every nation on earth. Bible has always been the only source of God’s truth, OT existed long ago as I said, and it had been taught to the children of Israel since Moses, what made the difference was just the accessibility of it.

 

[ResidentAlien]

No no this is good. If you “hated” the monks you would have said so … all’s good.

You seem to be the one focused on hate.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Again, you show your ignorance of the Bible. The Bible consists of both the Old and New Testament. The Canon of the New Testament wasn't approved until 300 years after Jesus ascension. Even then,, for the next 1200 years Bibles were rare and hand copied. And for 1800 years after Christ's ascension few people could read and write. So how could the Bible have been the only source of God's truth? It didn't just fall out of the sky and the truth of Christianity survived many centuries without the Bible being accessible.

And by the way, "Sola Scriptura" wasn't invented by the Reformists, it's a biblical principle originally came from the Berean church as I pointed out. They regarded their Scripture as their highest authority instead of Paul or any local rabbis.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Again, you show your ignorance of the Bible. The Bible consists of both the Old and New Testament. The Canon of the New Testament wasn't approved until 300 years after Jesus ascension. Even then,, for the next 1200 years Bibles were rare and hand copied. And for 1800 years after Christ's ascension few people could read and write. So how could the Bible have been the only source of God's truth? It didn't just fall out of the sky and the truth of Christianity survived many centuries without the Bible being accessible.

You're right, at first there was no New Testament. They relied on word of mouth, but more importantly on the apostles' letters. Eventually it was clear that it would be necessary to collect all the most authoritative writings because of all the heresy that was going around. Even Peter alludes to this:

"For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease."—2 Peter 1:12-15

What was the "reminder" he talks about? Well, theoretically it could be a few things but I believe he's talking about making a collection of writings to which they could refer. From early on the various congregations read the apostles' letters in their meetings and traded letters with other congregations, so it doesn't seem that unlikely that Peter was talking about the apostles' writings.

Confirmation of this seems to come in v. 16: "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

The purpose for making a collection of authoritative writings was to counteract the "cunningly devised fables" that others were preaching and teaching.

 

[arthurfleminger]

You're right, at first there was no New Testament. They relied on word of mouth, but more importantly on the apostles' letters. Eventually it was clear that it would be necessary to collect all the most authoritative writings because of all the heresy that was going around. Even Peter alludes to this:

"For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease."—2 Peter 1:12-15

What was the "reminder" he talks about? Well, theoretically it could be a few things but I believe he's talking about making a collection of writings to which they could refer. From early on the various congregations read the apostles' letters in their meetings and traded letters with other congregations, so it doesn't seem that unlikely that Peter was talking about the apostles' writings.

Confirmation of this seems to come in v. 16: "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

The purpose for making a collection of authoritative writings was to counteract the "cunningly devised fables" that others were preaching and teaching.

ResidentAlien, firstly let me make it plain and clear. I wholeheartedly believe that the Bible is the true word of God. The authors of the New Testament were fully inspired by the Holy Spirit as to what should be written. THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD TO US. My point is that it's not the only source of God's truth.

Throughout the 2,000 years of Christianity, the Bible has been very rare and people could not read it for many centuries. Despite the lack of Bibles and literacy of the peoples, Christian truth flourished and is with us today.

So, there is a problem with those that claim that 'Only the Bible' is the source of God's truth. In fact, the Bible itself refutes that and tells us that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of God's truth. Also, Paul exhorted gentiles to follow all that was given them, both in oral tradition and in writing.

 

[Aaron56]

ResidentAlien, firstly let me make it plain and clear. I wholeheartedly believe that the Bible is the true word of God. The authors of the New Testament were fully inspired by the Holy Spirit as to what should be written. THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD TO US. My point is that it's not the only source of God's truth.

Throughout the 2,000 years of Christianity, the Bible has been very rare and people could not read it for many centuries. Despite the lack of Bibles and literacy of the peoples, Christian truth flourished and is with us today.

So, there is a problem with those that claim that 'Only the Bible' is the source of God's truth. In fact, the Bible itself refutes that and tells us that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of God's truth. Also, Paul exhorted gentiles to follow all that was given them, both in oral tradition and in writing.

I mostly agree with this.

However, when there is a difference between practice (people) and the scriptures the church must adhere to the scriptures.

For example, when Paul warned about these certain things:

"Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.
They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."

So when a "church" teaching comes along that says "Hey, the priests cannot be married and we're going to abstain from meat on Fridays for reasons" the saints have an obligation to NOT follow those teachings.

Unfortunately, many believers couldn't read the early scriptures either because of scarcity or their inability so the Roman church got away with abject apostasy. To the common Roman, what the church taught seemed normal when actually it was against clear Biblical teaching. And, since the church monopolized access to God by their own doctrine, the people had no choice but to acquiesce to the patterns established by the Roman church leaders. The Roman church leaders, recognizing this, created compensatory history favorable to their own schemes to capture the minds of the populous.

This isn't rocket science. These things are apparent with even a tertiary study of the early Roman church: they invented their own hierarchy to mirror the Roman government, they invented offices not found in scripture, they invented or co-opted common cultural teachings to appease the people in the Empire, they renovated pagan temples to appear more "Christian" but kept their opulence to project status, they created a pantheon of gods from the saints, including statues, because it was common in the polytheistic culture, Vestal Virgins became "Nuns", prayer candles and incense replaced the Roman Hearth gods, the priests still practiced pederasty (and still do today) as a right of status (Pederasty).

In short, the saints are called to demonstrate the character of Our Father in heaven, and God may grant them wisdom from above, but they will never contradict scripture. Also, they will never co-opt a tradition of man to appease the people.

 

[ResidentAlien]

ResidentAlien, firstly let me make it plain and clear. I wholeheartedly believe that the Bible is the true word of God. The authors of the New Testament were fully inspired by the Holy Spirit as to what should be written. THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD TO US. My point is that it's not the only source of God's truth.

Throughout the 2,000 years of Christianity, the Bible has been very rare and people could not read it for many centuries. Despite the lack of Bibles and literacy of the peoples, Christian truth flourished and is with us today.

So, there is a problem with those that claim that 'Only the Bible' is the source of God's truth. In fact, the Bible itself refutes that and tells us that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of God's truth. Also, Paul exhorted gentiles to follow all that was given them, both in oral tradition and in writing.

I don't know about the past. All I know is that now that we have the Bible, translated into every conceivable tongue, it now stands as the only reliable truth. Traditions that were formed and handed down from the past need to be evaluated against the written word.

Go back and read 1 Timothy 3:15: "but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

The church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth so long as we hold to the authoritative writings. If not for them then it's the wild west, anything goes.

 

[ResidentAlien]

ResidentAlien, firstly let me make it plain and clear. I wholeheartedly believe that the Bible is the true word of God. The authors of the New Testament were fully inspired by the Holy Spirit as to what should be written. THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD TO US. My point is that it's not the only source of God's truth.

Out of curiosity, what are the other sources of Yahweh's truth you're talking about?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

ResidentAlien, firstly let me make it plain and clear. I wholeheartedly believe that the Bible is the true word of God. The authors of the New Testament were fully inspired by the Holy Spirit as to what should be written. THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD TO US. My point is that it's not the only source of God's truth.

Throughout the 2,000 years of Christianity, the Bible has been very rare and people could not read it for many centuries. Despite the lack of Bibles and literacy of the peoples, Christian truth flourished and is with us today.

So, there is a problem with those that claim that 'Only the Bible' is the source of God's truth. In fact, the Bible itself refutes that and tells us that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of God's truth. Also, Paul exhorted gentiles to follow all that was given them, both in oral tradition and in writing.

The bible is not one book, but a collection of 66 books. NT is the continuation and fulfillment of the OT, and the OT existed long before the Church was born on Pentecost. Back in the first century, Jews had their oral tradition and writings as well, and Jesus debunked all of those man made doctrines that wasn't in the Torah without impunity. Roman Catholics were just repeating the same history with their own oral tradition and writings. Of course God's truth doesn't only come from the bible, He manifest His truth in reality, but if you wanna understand what that is, the most authoritative source is still the bible, not any particular church leader.

 

[CS1]

In context of the OP?

I would think so

 

[Magenta]

I would think so

Could you please give a Biblical example of it being okay to worship people?

 

[CS1]

Could you please give a Biblical example of it being okay to worship people?

I do not see anything in the word of God we are to worship people nor do I see the word to mean that


Is the veneration of saints Biblical

of saints Biblical?

the answer is yes it in context to the word veneration= meaning honor.

The word of God says
Rom13:7
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

1Sam 2:30
Therefore the LORD God of Israel says: ‘I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever.’ But now the LORD says: ‘Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.


Jesus honored John " said there was no greater man born of the womb," Mary the Mother of Jesus was to be honored for her faithfulness


So yes we are to do so.

 

[Magenta]

I do not see anything in the word of God we are to worship people nor do I see the word to mean that

Is the veneration of saints Biblical

of saints Biblical?

the answer is yes it in context to the word veneration= meaning honor.

The word of God says
Rom13:7
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

1Sam 2:30
Therefore the LORD God of Israel says: ‘I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever.’ But now the LORD says: ‘Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.


Jesus honored John " said there was no greater man born of the womb," Mary the Mother of Jesus was to be honored for her faithfulness


So yes we are to do so.

The Op was asking about venerating/honoring/worshiping people.

and it was the worship of people I specifically asked you about, also.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Veneration of "saints" is not Biblical. But this is irrelevant to Catholics really. If their Catechism (traditions) and the "church" says it's okay then it's okay. The Bible takes last place to the Catechism and the "church."

Whenever a Catholic says: I absolutely believe the Bible is the word of God, this has to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sure they do believe it but they depend on the Catechism and the "church" to tell them how to understand it.

 

[arthurfleminger]

Could you please give a Biblical example of it being okay to worship people?

Magenta, you are correct when you state that there are no examples of worshiping people in the Bible. But you confuse worship with honor. To honor means to esteem and treat another with respect because of who they are or what they have done. Honor bestows a sense of value, price, or quality. That which is valued and esteemed is “honored.”

And there are so many examples of honoring people, of even God honoring people in the Bible.
Some examples of God honoring others, to name a few:

1. God honored David by calling him a man after His own heart.

2. Jesus honored sinners by dining with them, during Jesus day dining with someone was a sign of friendship and honor.

3. Jesus honored His apostles/disciples at the Last Supper and called them His friends.

4. God spoke, "Those who honor me I will honor.” – 1 Samuel 2:30

5. For sure, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit honored Mary. The Father honored Mary by choosing her to be the mother of Jesus, a high honor indeed! We know Jesus obeyed all the commandments to include honoring His own mother. And we know that the Holy Spirit honored Mary by conceiving Jesus with her, and also Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit.

5. Jesus honored His apostles by choosing them.

6. God honored Abraham by making him the father of nations, also God honored Isaac and Jacob.

7. God honored Moses and Aaron by choosing them to lead the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage.

etc.............too many examples to name.

 

[CS1]

The Op was asking about venerating/honoring/worshiping people.

and it was the worship of people I specifically asked you about, also.

OK but I see the OP is asking
Is "veneration" of saints Biblical which is to honor not to worship?
We are never to worship people As I answered you

 

[CS1]

The Op was asking about venerating/honoring/worshiping people.

and it was the worship of people I specifically asked you about, also.

from my very opening statement I said "I do not see anything in the word of God we are to worship people " #94

 

[ResidentAlien]

Well, veneration is a kind of worship. It may not be the same kind of worship reserved for Yahweh but it is worship nevertheless. Catholics have all kinds of theological mazes to justify things to make them more palatable to people.

But what I'd really like to know, whether you call it veneration or worship, where is the whole process of canonization taught in scripture? I don't find it anywhere so I have to assume it's another Catholic tradition without scriptural authority. Where did any of the New Testament writers write to any congregation and say hey, we've got a really important thing called canonization we'd like you to set up and implement?