>>1287779

>"it's not worship if I call it veneration"

It would be in English a few hundred years ago, when people of status were called "Your Worship". But over the last three hundred years, the term "worship" came to be used to be used how adore used to be used (latria), and "adore" became watered down to the point that it means regular veneration or less. "Oh come let us adore Him" is one of the few phrases well known in English that still uses the term in the old way.

It was actually the Catholic Church (by that I mean what is today the Orthodox Church, but back when the West was still in communion) that first made a sharp terminological distinction between the respect due to God that due to non-divine figures. Hebrew made no such distinction--the word unusually translated as "worship" in the Old Testament, is the same word used to describe the veneration Moses pays to his father-in-law (Exodus 18:7) --this wasn't ever an issue with the Hebrews, because they knew the different level of respect intuitively, but a strong terminological distinction had to be introduced in cultures where polytheistic religion used to be prevalent, so as to ensure they didn't conflate saints with deities.

tl;dr you can thank the veneration of saints for bringing in the idea of special term of respect that can only be applied to God

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple_Judaism#CITEREFMooreKelle2011
youtube.com/watch?v=wNaUyWdJeZw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Latin venerātus, past participle of venerārī to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship, revere, verbal derivative of vener-, stem of venus, presumably in its original sense “desire”; see Venus )

Reminder that being a tranny is a mental illness.

Oh look it's Constantshill again.

This definition skewers the papists.

Can I venerate my local pagan god by praying just in the general vicinity of a piece of art depictiuring him so he can worship the trinity god on my behalf?

t.Henotheist

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean, "Deep respect for and communion with saints takes away from God", or do you mean, "Only God should be held in this level or respect because saints are humans", or do you mean, "it's good we have these new words so we can really explain what we mean and communicate the differentiation of feelings"?

You can do what you want, man. To my understanding that is between you and God. I would say more but you're not really asking.

What if pagan gods are just angels and you can pray to/venerate them and still worship the trinity?

Some gods may have been angels, however those aren't GOOD angels. See Angels are a species like humans are a species. The only real difference between angels and demons is that angels are loyal to God, and demons are opposed to god. In Christianity all other gods people worshipped who aren't the monothestic god of abraham the creator of the world are either made up by humans and don't exist, or are demons led by Lucifer who decided to lead people astray. So no you can't have pagan gods venerate the Christian God, because they aren't loyal to the Christian God they are traitors.

Well, what if alot of things. That's just not part of the dogma. Pagan gods, actually, in mainstream Christianity, have been reduced to demons, first in prose, but now in literal belief. Ezekiel 28, for example, is a depiction of the patron whatever of Tyre, Melqart, but most Christians today tell you that is the devil, or Satan with a capital S, like a single entity, not ha-satan with little s, which really means Satan. Whatever. It's all been convoluted, but makes a very nice, simplistic package to blame everything on instead of taking personal responsibility.

Right, but it doesn't mean than in English. In Latin, the RCC does not say "veneratus", she uses the term "dulia".


I mean people who complain that veneration is just another term for "worship", and worship should be held for God alone, can thank the veneration of saints for starting the practice of having a term used exclusively for the homage due to God. Hebrew didn't have such a term, that is the word used for the worship of God and the respect paid to one's father, was the same word. The contemporary use of the word "worship" as a specialty word for the respect due to God, is the direct legacy of that.

>instead of taking personal responsibility.
What, you mean like Confession and Repentance?

Demons and the Devil can only tempt (literally the same word as "test") people, they can't force them to do anything. If you fail the test, that's your own fault. No one is tested more than they are capable of resisting, God ensures that (which is why saints and monks and the best people are often the most drastically tempted, because they can resist more).

>worship

Should we have the same conversation about "fear"?

>they are traitors.

but how can you know?
"By their fruits you shall know them" ?

Assur and Ares are bloodthirsty assholes who were worshipped out of fear, then there are the ones who want way too much like the blood of a man.

But Hanuman and dionysus?
They seem to inspire good deeds in the first place, so how can you judge whether they are loyal to god or not?

no. You know as well as I so many people blame everything on the "devils works", and it should many times simply that inside of us which is original sin. Many times it's our own ego and drives, not a metaphysical being, which make us perpetrate tresspasses.

If you don't fear God, it means you are either sinless, or shameless.

Yes, but you can fear many things, so is that fear the same fear you feel of falling? I'm asking because of "worship" v "worship".

"The devil made me do it" is mainly a Western thing, it doesn't exist in Orthodoxy.

Your own ego is always what *makes* you perpetuate trespasses, but the idea of the trespass is very frequently suggested to you by a demon's whisper, you're just tricked into thinking you came up with the idea. But if you follow through on, when it is time for your Judgement, pointing out you were tempted will do nothing for you, God doesn't accept that as an excuse, he'll just see you as a snitch--exactly what the Devil loves to do most, and he's already informed on you before you informed on him.

It's like Burke's idea of the sublime.

What about "respect"? I'm to respect God, and I'm to respect other people and myself. That's not the same kind of respect, though.

The word in Hebrew generally means to prostrate yourself before someone, that's a little stronger than what Aretha Franklin talked about

So what's in a word? As long as context is correct, even if we do say people "worship" saints, knowing what that concept means to them, I don't see why it's bad, or why people make them out to be somehow "worshiping a pantheon". I think that's an intentionally obtuse cheap shot.

Demonization of pagan gods is a huge part of the Christian mythos. This is why it causes so much cognitive dissonance to learn that ancient Egyptians, Zoroastrians were virtuous people with moral and religious ideas often akin to Christian ones.

t. Tranny degenerate hypocrite

man, why can't you be cool once in awhile.

Zoroastrianism got a lot from Messianic Judaism, so that's not really surprising.

As a former Catholic turned atheist, I can confirm the entire "it's not worship, it's veneration!" is merely a cheap semantic trick, and that, for all effects and purposes, lay people pray and worship Mary and the saints.

but is that an appropriate behavior, or have they been indoctrinated poorly? Is that the message and intent of the canon, or the way some regional practice has perverted it, as Santaria?

See? They have to rewrite history otherwise they can't handle the cognitive dissonance.

What's rewritten? Who is God's anointed in Isaiah 45 and for whom did God send Michael to help lock down rebelling princes?

It's the other way around, tripfag. Judaism before the exile was still very much polytheistic and not at all "Messianic", and it was the influence of Zoroastrianism that helped temper its polytheistic streak and put it on the path that made it monotheistic.

I think the pre-exile Jews weren't very good Jews, when they were supposed to be being monotheistic, not the actual aspect of Judaism itself. The Chaldean exile pretty much sent the message to "temper the polytheistic streak" as you say, and also Ezra.

Don't know about the RCC, but that is definitely not the case in Orthodoxy. There is a massive gap between how venerate God and how we venerate saints, and whenever we venerate saints vocally, it is always on the context of their being great servants of God. We don't ask saints for forgiveness, and we don't present a sacrifice to them on the alter.

>Don't know about the RCC, but that is definitely not the case in Orthodoxy.

I know it's important for you to believe this, so whatever dude, I'm not gonna argue as if you were going to change your mind anyway. I'll just note to whoever might be reading this that unbiased scholars that actually study this for a living generally agree that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism.

>Judaism before the exile was still very much polytheistic
What are you basing this on?

>and it was the influence of Zoroastrianism that helped temper its polytheistic streak and put it on the path that made it monotheistic.
No it isn't. The entire idea of a Messiah who comes to end the reign of evil over the world and restore goodness is clearly something that would come from a people under occupation and enslavement, it's not idea that would come out of the civilization that was ruling the world. And certainly, the idea of the good God at the end bring wrath upon evil forces would come out of a religion of monotheism that saw other gods as evil, not out of Persia, which was extremely tolerant of all worship.

I believe that, too. I think tho, it was an intended thing, because God sent Cyrus, and hey, guess who showed up shortly after Jesus' birth...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

>Hah! Look at those Pagan idiots, they literally worship statues! They literally bow down before statues and ask them for things! This is complete madness, they'll never have a relationship with the true God!

>We don't worship the statues of Saints you fucking prick, worship is for the one, triune God alone! When we pray in front of a statue of St. Peter or Mary, we're neither praying to the statue or the person represented by it. We're praying with them, petitioning them, asking for them to intercede on our behalf in front of God.

Oh, ok. I think it's perfectly legitimate, from a Christian perspective, to think that Zarathustra was a sort "Christian before Christ" figure like Melchizedek, or a "prophet to the pagans", like some early Christian apologists refered to Socrates and Plato, and IIRC the Muslims maintain too. But to claim, like a certain obnoxious individual on this board (whose name will not be mentioned), contrary to every evidence, that Zoroaster lived in the time of Cyrus and found a copy of Isaiah lying around and invented a new religion based off of it is downright dishonest.

I don't think either of those things. I think God anointed and empowered Cyrus and sent Michael to help him, and in the successive period both understandings affected each other. Further it was part of an intentional plan by God.

>What are you basing this on?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple_Judaism#CITEREFMooreKelle2011

"There was a sharp break between ancient Israelite religion and the Judaism of the Second Temple.

Pre-exilic Israel was polytheistic; Asherah was probably worshiped as Yahweh's consort, within his temples in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria, and a goddess called the Queen of Heaven, probably a fusion of Astarte and the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar, was also worshiped. The worship of Yahweh alone, the concern of a small party in the monarchic period, only gained ascendancy in the exilic and early post-exilic period, and it was only then that the very existence of other gods was denied."

You'll find other sources on the page.

How is kissing the image of a saint any different from kissing the image of your mother in a locket?

How is asking a saint to pray for you deifying them anymore than asking anyone to pray for you is?

Yes but God instructed people to tear down the Asherah poles and people didn't listen. You're arguing the people of pre-exilic Israel weren't , by and large, very good monotheists, and we know this. The destruction of the temple and subsequent exile was punishment. Then, when the punishment was over, when people were ready to listen, God sent Cyrus. This is pretty apparent in Jeremiah and Isaiah, some in Daniel.

Are angels Yazidis and alevites proper angels or demons?
How can you if its an angel or demon as there is no definite list to base it on?
If a hindi would claim his gods are like your angels, what would the correct response be against this attempt to syncretise your stuff up?

youtube.com/watch?v=wNaUyWdJeZw

>contrary to every evidence,
In accordance with most evidence, all Zoroastrian accounts date his life to around then, and the first non-Persian source to mention him is Herodotus. The sole argument for his having lived much, much earlier is based on the language he uses (Avestan), which is extremely ancient; but that language was the sacred language of Persia and remained in religious and sometimes academic use long after it commonly died, so using that solely to date him would be like dating Newton's Principia to ancient Rome because it's in Latin.

Angels are defined by serving the Trinity. If their gods aren't defined that way, they're either mythological, or demons.

It's not that "Judaism wasn't monotheistic before Babylon". That's not right. Judaism is monotheistic and the people were not practicing it appropriately.

>"God blah blah blah"

Oh look, a delusional Christcuck.

I'm not gonna go through this with you again. You don't care about finding out the truth of the matter, only pandering to your worldview. The current scholarly consensus is against you. If you have anything new to shake that consensus you should consider publishing it. Until then I have nothing to add.

But it's the biblical narrative. Regardless if you believe it or not, that is the story, and I can even argue some parts of the historicity, without the metaphysical nature, of it. You're being unreasonable.

The current scholarly consensus is also that Christ did not rise from the dead, you'll obviously have to appeal to more than the consensus here.

But how can you find the proper definition which identifies an unloyal angel?
There was for example some squabbles over whether Uriel was an archangel or not, so if even the nature of the known angels is contested how can the alliance of the ones the jews did not listen up in their scriptures be found out?
I was always kinda interested in the way angels are defined and what their role is.

They are all there and ..do stuff.. in the universe after all.

Angels foment worship of the Trinity, demons hamper it. That's how you can tell.

Dude, I'm not gonna appeal to anything. In fact I'm done talking to you. Cheers.

If you want to treat it like "Tale of Two Cities" or "Moby Dick", that's fine. It's still a story, regardless of your belief in the inspired nature of it. Saying otherwise only makes you inept at the literacy aspect of the book.

I can tell you the story of the Tolkein trilogy or Harry Potter, too. I don't think it's inspired, but I've read it and I'm educated enough to discuss it. You should behave the same manner.

>Judaism is monotheistic and the people were not practicing it appropriately.

Wrong. Stop taking your Bible less seriously, all the archeological evidence points to Judaism having been polytheistic, with Yawheh simply having been the patron deity of the Hebrews, but hardly the only god in existence. What you call the Hebrew Bible was only compiled authoritatively in the 4-5th century BCE, and it was heavily edited, since many of the stories had to be refitted to remove the polytheistic nature of the narratives or to fit the changing aesthetics of the Babylonian-inspired court.

The monotheistic Judaism of the Second Temple period was born from the desire to deliberately create a national religion, not as some divinely-revealed tenet.

ok, another question in connection to this (I would ask somewhere else, but if I google theological question I often end up on american protestant sites which are kinda retarded.)
If the son is part of the trinity and he left the spritit does that mean that no trinity but a singular godhead was in existence before the birth of christ?
In that case, how could the jews know that michael was a legit angel and no demon?

I understand that argument and you're welcome to it. There's plenty of evidence Jerusalem had all manners of worship. I accept the oral tradition, you do not. I have a relatively idealized understanding of parts of it, too, as I do Revelation, instead of a futurist or preterist view. My understanding of the bible is admittedly different than many other Christians, but I hold that it's inspired and truth. You don't. I am ok with this.

I was more mocking early Christian apologists claiming pagans were stupid, decadent, idolaters, while behaving in the same exact way right before settling down for an Agape feast.

Also idolatry or not, who cares? You may believe an Amazon tribe bowing before statues representing the divine is seriously improper worship, but what is Christianity if not the translation of divine mysteries into a language able to be understood by humans? In the end is bastardizing God down into something able to be understood idolatrous and immoral only if it's the wrong God?

No one's trying to take away your rituals of kissing the bones of the dead, you dumb trip.

That's kind of weak. Persians had a state religion and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem to build the second temple. By what you say, they could just as easily, had it meant so little, adopted the religion of their liberators. They certainly weren't going to try to enact a state religion out from under the toes of the Persians, who were very cool to them.

I don't have a specific problem with what you say except that it's a bit historically short-sighted.

Don't the Orthodox believe in the communion of saints too?

Yeah, that's the same thing as us filthy papists do. Or at least that's what we're supposed to do; nobody actually knows anything about the church around here.

No, the Trinity was always there (see Genesis 18). The Word existed before he became incarnate as the Son ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God." The Spirit of God talked about in the creation account is the Holy Spirit.

So the israelits at their height knew about the trinity, therefore their knowledge about certain named angels being un/loyal to it is legit?

No one, except Christians sees references to the trinity in genesis.

They knew the God's Word (which precedes creation, since it brings it into being) is God, and the Spirit of God is God. They didn't have an elaborate theology of it, of course.

Well if they did, they'd probably be Christians, wouldn't they?

So only the angels named as loyal by the israelite prophets can be accepted and any others cannot be accepted because people cant know for sure, even though there are more good and bad angels as were named in the first place?

There are plenty of other angels, but if the angel in question isn't fomenting worship of the Trinity, then we're talking a demon. An angel is only venerated in the context of being a servant to God.

Okay

Veneration of the saints is respecting a saint and applying their trials to your life and becoming closer to God through meditating on the experience.

Understanding the saint is not God is common sense, that is why in the present day the terms worship and venerate have a different tone because it's the best way to explain why one doesn't worship saints over God.

that's not the reason most people venerate saints though, especially historically. saints are expected to intercede with God on your behalf. it's not exactly worship since God is still the one who fixes your problem but it certainly is in a gray area

The intercession of the saints is ultimately tied to the very, very old idea that the dead can pray for the living. This shows up a little in the Book of Maccabees, which is why that book is part of the Catholic Bible. However, a lot of it seems to be Tradition. It seems to have been something part of the Church from the earliest days.

>Angels
Cucks

Jajaja.
I wonder who's....

>Michael
Blasphemy. Angels are just messengers any other interpretation is corruption.

>God sent Cyrus
I had seen it! Tlaloc sent Trump to put a Wall so He can drown the evil from Mexicans.
And It is true because, hey, Trump is there and the wall and...
>Please

Angels are messagers and travelers. Look for Gods who are know for Traveling.
Demons are lesser Gods

The Concept is first then the Word.

For 2000 years in orthodox Church we venerated Her. And She always answered back - She always listens to prayers and helps you.

>Telephones
Yeah, They're actually that. There telephones

The Seeong is a form of Observation. The Observation brings, changes, reminds new and old things (of)

*Seeing

If God's "message" is banishment, protection or destruction, angels will deliver it.

Isaiah 45. God anointed and empowered Cyrus. God sent Cyrus.

Some material bump on OP's subject

...

...

...