/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>4073

Just washing the body of a saint. Not even close to your dramatized click bait fantasy.

I imagine they're pouring water over it so some of the residual grace of the saints relic transfers to the water so people can collect it without destroying the original.

>EAT_THE_FLESH.webm

I suppose you could drink it, but destroying it buy eating it would be quite inefficient.

>>4073

They are profaning and desecrating a corpse because

>reasons

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvii.html

Chapter XVII.—The Christians are refused Polycarp’s body.

But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive463 nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors464 of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him 43that was crucified, they begin to worship this one.” This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners465), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary466affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions467 and fellow-disciples!

>>4164

What's the connection here

>>4166

Early Christians were trying to "possess" a dead martyr's corpse and it is not just for burial either because of the same word for "possess" also means "have fellowship with". That idolatrous practice dates way earlier than you think.

>>4168

>That idolatrous practice dates way earlier than you think.

how do protes explain the occurances in the bible were miracles are worked through 'relics'?

>God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them. (Acts 19:12)

I could cite some more similar passages.

This is some weird necromancy shit.

>>4073

I think the most disturbing thing about this isn't the preservation of the mummified foot, nor the treating of it as holy, nor the people wanting to partake of water in contact with that foot due to "residual grace" >>4080 . What's most disturbing is that judging by the fanatical fervor with which the people are almost trampling over themselves to get a bucket of that water, is that they appear to have more faith in magic water blessed by a magic saint's foot, than they do in Jesus. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus explicitly does away with this concept in John 5: 1-15, and throughout various moments of him directly healing others through them coming directly to Him, or Him to them.

>>4164

>>4168

Yeah, and pagans would divide up and bury the various pieces of a corpse of a king considered especially "blessed" in "luck" so that as many nearby provinces as possible could benefit from the residual gr…. sorry, I meant "luck." Whether it's the Dia de los Muertos of the the Latinos, or the leftover Perchta rituals of the Alpines/Central Europe, pagans are gonna pagan even after Christianity rolls through.

>>4217

Yes, Jesus worked such miracles through Paul, though such an example is rare in the New Testament. I can think of one other example of the bones of a prophet from the OT doing similar workings. (2 Kings 13:21) Even the bronze serpent from Numbers 21:4-9 ultimately served as an obvious prophecy of things to come.

Ultimately, the napkin miracles was a way to establish Paul's credentials as an apostle to the faithless, in the same manner that Jesus performed direct miracles quickly and directly to those lacking in faith, while merely just speaking a word to those of strong faith. There is a strong implication throughout the NT that we are to graduate from a dependence on such things, to faith in Christ alone, and not stay stuck in such spiritual infancy as the people in the video are in, at best.. For an evil and adulterous generation looks for signs and miracles.

>>4838

This is false because Pagans in Polycarp's time would not have dared to be in contact with dead flesh in such a manner as in OPs picture because it is unclean. Glad we agree that the early Christians right after the New Testament turned to Pagan idolatry

To a Mediterranean man of traditional background, much of this(the cult of relics) would have been peripheral, and some of it,downright disgusting.As Artemidorus of Daldis wrote in the second century A.D., to dream that you are a tanner is a bad dream," for the tanner handles dead bodies and lives outside the city."14The rise of the Christian cult of saints took place in the great cemeteries that lay outside the cities of the Roman world: and, as for the handling of dead bodies, the Christian cult of saints rapidly came to involve the digging up,the moving,the dismemberment quite apart from much avid touching and kissing-of the bones of the dead, and, frequently, the placing of these in areas from which the dead had once been excluded.-Peter Brown, The Cult of Saints, It's Rise and Function in Latin Christianity

>>4839

>>4840

>>4841

>OT laws specifically have regulations about how coming into contact with a dead body is a defiling thing, to the point of having to be outside the camp for a period of days, for purification purposes. Coming into contact with a dead body, except by accident, was enough for a Nazarene to literally "reset" their vow period.

>Early Christians, which included converted Jews who were still getting used to transitioning from OT laws to the point that Paul wrote several epistles specifically exhorting against the continuation of these practices, would have been all over a dead body like white on rice on a paper plate in the middle of a snow storm!

Pick one.

>>4841

>Pagan worship of the dead was only isolated to heroes proven to be touched by the "gods", and only became common place for non-heroes due to Christianity.

This is either an outright lie, or horrible scholarship/eisegesis. Even commoner pagans specifically buried their non-god-touched-non-heroic ancestral dead nearby their homes, or even sometimes under their homes or home front door, in order to be as close to them and continue to receive their "luck" and protection. It's literally where people having gravestones, and visiting said gravestones to "talk" to the deceased, and leaving "offerings" of flowers comes from in the first place. Rome was specifically being influenced by this practice (when previously they practiced cremation) due to the influx of Germanic immigrants taking their customs with them.

>>4843

To further elaborate on the Germanic influence of the Roman transition from cremation to burial, was the Germanic belief that the soul and body were not separate things, as in Abrahamic religions, but were one in the same. Thus, the belief in one's life continuing beyond the grave at the spot one was buried at, and being able to continue one's influence over one's living family. The fact that Christians found themselves with actual bodies to dig up in cemeteries in Rome, rather than urns of ashes, is significant in this regard. >>4840

Combined with the aforementioned early Jew converts caution or revulsion towards dead bodies they had left over from OT law, which also may have rubbed off on early Gentile converts as implied by the first council of Acts 15, makes the concept of dead body worship being a purely Christian phenomenon void of pagan influence, sillier and sillier.

>>4843

And….zero scholarship or citations proving Peter Brown whose work on the subject is reknowned. Notice that even in your statements here, there is completely nothing about how Pagans treates corpses or touched them. In fact when Christians were doing corpse idolatry by your logic, Pagans at the time reacted to that with revulsion and expressed disgust. In fact Brown literally cites a Roman source talking about how to be in a line of work that demands exposure to this, is unfortunate and as a bad dream.

And remember, reverence for dead heroes doesnt count either, because reverence doesnt require kissing bones or venerating them. Something disgusting to Pagans. Telling also how even your own posts provide zero detail of Pagans venerating corpses at all. People gathering at grave sites DONT COUNT because as Brown states, the separation of dead and living is there. They dont kiss or touch the skeleton or remains either. So you simply make a strawman of Brown here.

>>4844

And also, Ritual impurity from corpses doesnt stop Jews from seeing the tombs of Old Testament prophets as popular pilgrimage sites. Even during the NT period as Craig Keener, a Protestant scholar notes in his commentary on Acts and also Paul Hartog, a Baptist who is a well known Polycarpian scholar

In the broader culture of Mediterranean antiquity, tombs were sacred and hence often linked with temples.1004 Like Greeks,1005 Jewish people venerated tombs of past heroes (see, e.g., Jos. War 4.531–32; cf. Ant. 16.179–82). Indeed, tombs of famous persons were, like temples, tourist attractions (Paus. 2.7.2; 8.41.1); though new tombs were normally constructed outside the walls of ancient cities, some had tombs of famous leaders in public places, even in a -marketplace (ἀγορά, Plut. Themist. 32.3).-Craig Keener, Commentary on Acts vol 1, pg 951

Also notice where tombs are usually located. Outside cities and Pagans do the same thing too. Burial is not amongst or close to the living

>>4845

>>4846

>>4847

I know it's you, Malaysian Anglican guy, and thus I know this is probably futile, but I suppose I'm a masochist at times:

Cremation was the most common burial practice in Rome, until a seismic shift occurred:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_funerary_practices#Disposal_of_the_body

You even concede that the pre-Christian Jews, at best, visited grave sites, but had very specific instructions never to handle the bodies themselves. In fact, 2 Kings 13:21 was literally a one time accident. And as evidenced by Paul's numerous admonitions against Judiazers and moments such as Acts 15, I have a hard time imagining early Jewish Christian converts being enthusiastic about kissing and much less handling dead corpses. Also, just look at the New Testament. From the beginning of Jesus' ministry, all the way to Revelations, represents roughly the first 73ish years, give or take, of Christianity as we know it. 73ish years…. and no documents that are the inspired writing of God, written by Holy Spirit lead men, are found that mention dead body worship. At all. The closest thing is a Stretch Armstrong interpretation of Acts 19:12. Basically nothing at all in the New Testament, and a one off accident in the entirety of the Holy Bible. Polycarp, from whom your earliest example arises, did not die until 156 AD. So that's now about 129 years of silence on the issue. What changed?

As stated before, that change is not going to come from newly converted Jews who, amongst other new converts, had specific hangups that had to be addressed in a diplomatic manner in Romans 14. If it's going to come from anyone amongst the new Christians, it's going to be among the Gentile converts. But which ones? It's not going to come from the Roman pagans, who themselves, as you stated, had Jewish-like hangups about dead bodies. I imagine the Greeks, and other Middle Easterners also had similar taboos in place. What Gentile converts would have a belief in the union of the soul and body, to the point that they would feel comfortable burying their bodies, not outside of civilization, but next to and even in their own homes? Such a belief that would easily translate into a comfort with handling dead bodies? The Germanic Immigrants:

http://heathengods.com/library/bil_linzie/

Including scholarly evidence of the treatment of the body that I mentioned earlier:

http://www.heathengods.com/library/road_to_hel/road_to_hel.pdf

>Professor Chadwick compares with this a statement made by Adam of Brermen about

the Swedes, who, he says, make gods out of men and worship them (colunt et deos ex

hominibus) ; it seems as though Adam must be thinking of the worship of men after

death, since he instances the story of the deification of a king Ericus told in the Life of St

Anskar. There are also mentions of family cults among the Prussians, which may be of

the same kind as these Swedish ones; and it is indeed possible that some cult on the lines

of those of the dead ancestors in the mountains is meant. However as it stands the brief comment from Landnámabók does little but arouse our curiosity. Then there is the wellknown passage from the Hálfdanar Saga Svarta in Heimskringla (IX), telling of the

burial of King Hálfdan:

>His reign had been more fortunate in the seasons and crops than those of all other

kings. So much trust was placed in him that, when they learned he was dead and his body

carried to Hringaríki to be buried, there came influential men from Raumaríki and

Vestfold and Heiðmörk, all begging to have the body and to bury it in their own district;

for they thought it would ensure prosperous seasons if they could obtain it. So it was

decided that they should divide the body between four places; the head was laid in a

howe at Stein in Hringaríki, and each man bore home a part of the body and laid it in

howe; these howes are called ‘the howes of Hálfdan’

>>4850

There was also animism and the passing on of relics in not only Germanic, but other forms of paganism as well. I could go on about various examples of swords and items owned by deceased ancestors being passed on to living decedents in order to inherit their ancestors "luck"; pagan practices of objects and the natural world having their own souls (any good commentary of Beowulf will note that a major theme in this poem is the concept of Beowulf's various swords being a reflection of their own soul as well as the soul and might of the previous owner.) Not to mention repeated instances of individuals going into the graves of their ancestors to acquire items/weaponry/etc. to carry on such might and soul from the item and ancestor.

And wouldn't you know it, Germanic immigration started around the cusp of the 2nd Century:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png

And REALLY kicked into high gear around the third century, contributing to Western Rome's fall to Germanic forces.

Even then, I concede this is a just a theory. And yet it's more plausible than "Virtually nothing in the entire Bible, about 129 years of nothing on this issue, from directly God inspired men, to *poof!* dead body and relic worship in the mid 2nd century!"

And all of this isn't even taking into account the overall sketchy nature of relics, and their propensity to lead the faithful into idolatry even back in the Old Covenant days (in fact, even relics that were once used for good - 2 Kings 18:4):

https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-relics.html

Even a portion of the tomb that supposedly contained Lazarus' remains has been dated from a later century (with the Bishop not allowing "Lazarus' bones" to be taken for date testing.) - from the Lazarus episode of "Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact and Forgery."

Even the Shroud of Turin is one whole undivided cloth. Yet John 20:5-7, and Luke 24:12 both say clothes, not cloth (with John's gospel, in particular, noting a separate head cloth.) Lazarus himself is noted as being bound in grave clothes and a separate face napkin, thus this manner was obviously the traditional manner of burial for Jews, not one undivided linen cloth: John 11:44.

>inb4 that .jpg about the Shroud of Turin that's been passed around a gazillion times.

The central point regarding that is this: either the Shroud of Turin is real, and the Word of God is not inerrant, or the Word of God is inerrant and the Shroud of Turin is a forgery. You can't have it both ways.

In closing, giving the unlikelihood of corpse/relic worship arising in Christianity void of pagan influence, the sketchiness of so-called "relics" in the first place, and even formerly good relics, like the bronze serpent, ultimately turning the faithful to idolatry (and quite frankly, witnessing this phenomenon in modern Christian sects that practice this), I fail to see how the practice of corpse/relic worship is beneficial to Christendom.

>>4851

And once again, as noted here: >>4838 even Jesus himself ultimately, time and time again, points towards faith in Him, rather than on residual grace: John 5: 1-15 being the most prominent example.

>>4852

To elaborate more one what John 5: 1-15 has to do with residual grace, according to the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible on these verses, paraphrased:

>" Bethesda was used to wash down the sacrificial lambs before they were slain, thus an indirect way of participating in the animal sacrifices in the temple. Yet the grace was limited to the first person to enter the waters."

Quite ironic, given the source.

>>4850

>none of which relates to the form of Paganism which is Roman and the one Early Christians encountered.

And again as we see, nothing about venerating the corpse or placing them in a display that Christians do with relics of saints. Only the basic of hero worship which even Brown makes clear is also done by the Romans. So again you provided no evidence that what is done in OP is Pagan influenced at all. Because NONE of those groups treat the corpses of the dead in the manner of OP because it is dirty.

In fact take the link to Germanic Paganism by this Calvinist describing its spirituality(Germanic Spirituality). On page 21 of the PDF where burial practice is mentioned, it says that if a corpse is not laid in the ground, it is believed its soul will not be able to come back home. That is completely and utterly foreign to the Cult of Relics in Christian practice which shows how this anon cannot even read his sources properly. No wonder he is wont to give the locations of his claims which are misrepresentational in nature. Not me as I show the direct quotes, source and exact page for people to check and verify.

There are also parts of that PDF like on page 30 that actually show how the Viking tier Paganism(different from the form Earliest Christianity encountered aka Roman Paganism) which even shows how the Hammer Sign in heathen times isnt some Pagan version of the Sign of the Cross.

In the PDF "Investigating Afterlife Concepts of the Norse Heathen" on pages 28-29 only mentions offerings for the dead which are given. Nothing about the bodies being exhumed and venerated! Page 31 even says that it is Christian belief that the soul and body remains together after death. Does this mean Christianity is now Pagan or influenced by this? Of course not. Showing the absurdity of this person's argument and thesis.

Also on page 37 of that PDF, the author of this Calvinist's link says that the ancient Norse believed life below ground reflects that above ground. Again, nothing about how above and below ground are somehow mingled together. They are separate! Pg 38 describes the fear of "losing relatives to the Net of Ran" and need to avoid the corpse from moving beyond its grave. Antithetical to the cult of relics where the corpse relics are happily interred and moved around!

>>4863

In the second PDF given by this Calvinist already at page 102-103, how the dead are worshipped isnt through venerating the corpse or possessing it to have fellowship with the corpse. The example given is by depositing gold and taxes at the gravesite of a king!

The closest to the dead buried close to the living is simply given in context of royal activities carried out on a Queen's howe and the practice of sitting on it(pages 105-106). This says nothing about venerating the corpse or transferring it for public reverence.

Using the breaking up of the body of a king to say the cult of relics is Pagan infleunced also fails, because the only similarity is the sancity of the corpse. There is no indication of venerating the king by kissing the parts of the corpse. If any given the Norse Pagan stress on the need for bodies to be buried at the gravemount, it is burial in their territories that is seeked, not the possession of the corpse to venerate as the Early Christians venerate Polycarp.

Even in the chapter on Necromancy, nothing like the cult of relics is found. Mostly purposes of getting knowledge of the future and summoning spirits from the dead. That is not how relic cults in Christianity works

Also to note the fact that zero sources from Romans themselves are given is telling. But as I shown, anyone who read what was posted should ask themselves this,

1)Did the Norse and Germanic pagans actually exhume corpses and venerate them by embrace and kissing them?

2)Can the Pagan corpses in the Pagan worldview be moved into a public sphere for veneration?

3)Is the corpse somehow seen as the nexus between heaven and earth(in that Calvinist's sources only the gravesite is, not the relics or corpse)

>>4863

*Sigh* I tried.

>Calvinist

Not a Calvinist. Though I must confess, your repeated use of it as a slur is most amusing!

>No wonder he is wont to give the locations of his claims which are misrepresentational in nature.

I apologize for lacking the "Calvinist" work ethic to do your homework for you. (*Sigh* the struggles that come from not being a Calvinist….) But sadly, it's looking like maybe I should have…..

>On page 21 of the PDF where burial practice is mentioned, it says that if a corpse is not laid in the ground, it is believed its soul will not be able to come back home.

Because that's literally how intertwined the soul and body were viewed in Germanic Heathenry. Valhalla, as is portrayed in modern times, is literally the product of Germanic Heathenry borrowing the concept of a completely seperate afterlife that a soul goes to, that while native to the Abrahamic faiths, was completely foreign to Germanic Heathenry.

>There are also parts of that PDF like on page 30….

What does this have to do with anything? Viking paganism was mostly a continuation of early pre-Christian paganism.

>Page 31 even says that it is Christian belief…

This is a current in some variants of Christianity that dovetailed nicely with the Heathen belief about the body and soul, as said earlier.

>Also on page 37 of that PDF, the author of this Calvinist's link says that the ancient Norse believed life below ground reflects that above ground. Again, nothing about how above and below ground are somehow mingled together. They are separate!

False. Burying a body below your doorstep and believing your household's welfare is directly influenced by it is not merely "separate."

>Pg 38 describes the fear of "losing relatives to the Net of Ran"

Covered earlier.

>Antithetical to the cult of relics where the corpse relics are happily interred and moved around!

Because I didn't mention non-corpse relics earlier already….

>because the only similarity is the sanctity of the corpse.

The weren't shy about handling it now, were they?

>Also to note the fact that zero sources from Romans themselves are given is telling.

*Sigh* already explained this in prior posts. Nice cherry picking.

>1)Did the Norse and Germanic pagans actually exhume corpses and venerate them by embrace and kissing them?

I guess going into a grave-mound doesn't count.

I'll give you number 2, as I have no solid sources on that in particular.

>3)Is the corpse somehow seen as the nexus between heaven and earth(in that Calvinist's sources only the gravesite is, not the relics or corpse)

Actually, the corpse has to, actually be literally present in the grave for any protection or intervention or offerings to be effective in the first place. They can't just go to a random spot and just go "Well, we don't have such and such's corpse, but we'll just honor him here at this random spot for convenience. That'll work!" So yes. The mere grave-site is not a nexus unto it's own. And physical relics taken from the site are considered to be empowered as I've already stated.

Also, nice job dodging issues such as the 129 years of silence on the corpse worship issue. The problems with corpse worship arising from corpse adverse cultures (i.e. Early converted Jewish Christians, converted Romans, Greeks, etc., which is what my theory on Germanic immigrant influence came from in the first place, which you took out of context.) The animism and life in objects associated with said object and individuals who interacted with said object, endemic to paganism; the sketchy and sleazy nature of relic authenticity in the first place; as well as relic worship leading to idolatry, and greater faith in things like magic residual grace water, lucky char…. I mean miraculous medals and scapulars, etc instead of simple faith in Jesus Christ himself.

>>4870

I have to give you credit though: you've got my gears turning. You've got a point that some aspects of Germanic Heathenry don't quite neatly line up with the corpse worship in Early Christianity. In fact, the more I think about it, it honestly reminds me more of some of the corpse worship I've seen in some strains of Hinduism. Polycarp did die in what is now modern Turkey. I Wonder if I've been looking in the wrong direction….

>>4872

Okay, this is legitimately starting to freak me out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic#Hinduism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic#Buddhism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śarīra

>Remains of the Buddha or other spiritual masters, either cremated remains or other pieces, including a finger bone or a preserved body, similar to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox incorruptibles. Full body śarīra refers to Buddhist mummies, the mummified remains of spiritual masters.

>>4875

I want off this ride:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_beads#Origins_and_etymology

>>4870

Literally a bunch of non arguments. Here we see how the Baptist cowers in fear when his own homework is done for him. As long as Norse or Germanic Pagans dont exhume, touch or embrace the dead corpse in an act of veneration, it differs from the Christian cult of relics. It's as simple as that. Using hero worship or worship of the dead cannot count because they operate by different philosophies and dont engage in the act of exhuming and directly venerate the corpse. It's that simple. But you cannot grasp this at all.

>Because that's literally how intertwined the soul and body were viewed in Germanic Heathenry. Valhalla, as is portrayed in modern times, is literally the product of Germanic Heathenry borrowing the concept of a completely seperate afterlife that a soul goes to, that while native to the Abrahamic faiths, was completely foreign to Germanic Heathenry.

Missing the point. The PDF states extremely clearly that the dead must be buried at the tomb which is foreign to the logic underlying the cult of relics. Why? Because that focuses on the fixity of the burial location of the dead. It CANNOT be moved out of the ground which is contrary to a key aspect of the cult of relics in Christianity, the movement of the relics and their public avaliability . Hence the entire point here is a red herring that doesnt address my argument at all. Explaining the reason for that fixity doesnt entail my point as false. It only says why it is done.

>What does this have to do with anything? Viking paganism was mostly a continuation of early pre-Christian paganism.

This simply shows the myth that many Catholic practices are in fact borrowed from Paganism has less credence than people like you, who cannot even do your own historical homework properly, is false.

>This is a current in some variants of Christianity that dovetailed nicely with the Heathen belief about the body and soul, as said earlier.

Which the author of your source actually thinks is in Revelation. Anyone who read the Germanic Spiritualism link can see clearly his views on the matter.

>False. Burying a body below your doorstep and believing your household's welfare is directly influenced by it is not merely "separate."

Except the author nowhere mentions this at all. When detailing the worship of the dead, it is always at a designated tomb site as I had explained earlier. Here, the Baptist refuse to do his homework and needs others to do it for him. Ironic. In fact in the Road to Hel PDF, the chapter on disposing the dead refers to burial mounts, far from the misrepresentation you spew here.

>Because I didn't mention non-corpse relics earlier already….

Red herring because in context, the type of relic discussed is that of remains of the dead, which Pagans treat differently than Christians. Do your homework.

>The weren't shy about handling it now, were they?

As your own links show, handling remains in that manner is not permissible as it is violating the tomb and due to the fixity of the dead. In fact Roman graves frequently contain warnings against robbing or disturbing them which means no exhuming and transferring!

>Actually, the corpse has to, actually be literally present in the grave for any protection or intervention or offerings to be effective in the first place. They can't just go to a random spot and just go "Well, we don't have such and such's corpse, but we'll just honor him here at this random spot for convenience. That'll work!" So yes. The mere grave-site is not a nexus unto it's own. And physical relics taken from the site are considered to be empowered as I've already stated.

Non argument. The corpses themselves cannot be touched, exhumed or embraced. Under that logic, the Second Temple Jews actually followed these Pagans better. Why? Because despite ritual impurity, the tombs of the prophets are still cared for and venerated which is why later on in Rabbinic Judaism, this becomes disputed. And alsp saying that people cannot go to a random spot to worship or venerate the dead is a moot point. In fact the Christian cultus of relics…allow this in spite of the sanctity of the relics through Eucharistic Commemoration which is sometimes done in presence of the dead.

Now I concede the nexus argument may be weak here but so what? That same thing can extend to the Jews when they go and venerate the tombs of the prophets or engage in comemmorative meals for the dead which Romans do. Remember, anyone who done their homework on archeology knows there are ashes and cookware found at Jewish gravesites

>>4870

On your last point, the burden is on you to show it in the Roman context. Providing zero sources on the Romans themselves shows you dont even bother to do your own homework and dont allow the sources to speak for themselves. Which is what you have been doing here. Because anyone who read your links can see the presuppositions and actions of Nordic and Germanic Pagans dont line up exactly with Christian relic cults. Not to even mention that the Paganism that is familiar to Earliest Christianity is…the one of the Roman and Hellenic kind, not Nordic!

Using basic overlaps in practice doesnt count. Otherwise by that logic, Jews also do Pagan things. Otherwise the NT Eucharist is just a Pagan meal due to the same presupposition that the deity is present in the meal just as Paul assumes with the Lord's Supper. This shows the result of faulty eisegesis, refusal to let history speak for itself and being so desparate to prove yourself right arrogantly that you appeal to a context utterly foreign to the emergence of Christian relic cults!

>>4879

>Here we see how the Baptist cowers in fear when his own homework is done for him.

Dude, I'm cowering in fear at this stuff right now:

>>4875

>>4877

While I've gotten a distinctly pagan vibe from Cathodox and psuedo-Cathodox like the Anglicans, seeing this stuff first hand is legitimately freaking me out.

>>4881

This is just basically waving my last points aside, misrepresenting my theory and name calling now. I honestly could care less about your above previous fisking. Seeing videos on Youtube of Hindus parading in public with corpses in a manner you describe in Early Christian relic worship has caused everything to snap into place. Far from being arrogant, you're right: I was barking up the wrong tree. The right tree is far more terrifying to comprehend.

>>4885

>non argument

Using a culture utterly foreign to the Christian cult of relics is a non argument. No doubt, you do this when your incompetent handling of European Paganism shows just how false you are on this. You cannot account for the differing presuppositional views behind both practices. You cannot account for the mobile nature of the cult of relics. You cannot even account for how veneration need not the relics as basic eucharistic commemoration shows. And you cannot even account for the fact that the cult of relics is filled with public display of corpses and their veneration which is absent in the Pagan sources.

Worse still your own theory so called cant even be substantiated as shown by how zero use of Roman or Hellenistic Paganism is ever present to make the connection. Yet I through citing Peter Brown demonstrate the disdain for the dead which should be separated from the living. You also give zero evidence for close proximity to the relics aka buried under one's own doorstep at all. Even your own sources mention not this at all.

Worse still your own view demands that early Jews and Christians are Pagan influenced because the same logic can be used to apply to the eucharist, veneration of tombs and commemorative meals for the dead which archeology shows to be present in Jewish tombs!

So now, unable to face reality, the Baptist craft a grand conspiracy of Hindu influence! Which is impossible

>>4892

So you basically just regurgitated what you said while waving the other finer points away…again …and now wave away the disturbing parallels as conspiracy? Mobile and public display of corpses and worship? Repetitive prayers on prayer ropes? Extreme asceticism and monasteries that date to the 8th century BC?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śramaṇa

Early church writings specifically mentioning them?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śramaṇa#In_Western_literature

The fact that Alexander the Great had paved the way for paths to India by around 326 BC?

> buried under one's own doorstep

This point is genuine, but quite frankly, I've lost the appetite for tracking down that source.

>>4896

Even pre-Christian Europeans knew of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_Roman_world

>>4900

Need I go on?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_trade_relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Bactrian_Kingdom

So, impossible? No.

You people are just so long winded. I don't know how you have the patience.

>>4902

To clarify, do I buy into the "Jesus was Buddhist" malarkey? No. Is there a clear possibility of Hindu/Buddhist influence on some of the more questionable doctrines of the early church? Yes.

>>4903

I honestly don't know how myself.

>>4896

Again, zero proof of causal influence, which shows how you are unable to do your homework. Awareness of Hindus and Buddhists by Greeco-Romans did not translate into any change in Greeco-Roman additude towards the dead. It is still to be separated from the living, it is still a nightmare to have a job to deal with corpses and no one uses those display of worship of dead heroes or the Roman emperor for that matter.

In fact given that no established causal link is found or justified, safe for awareness of Indian philosophers whom wait for it, is negative as documents like the Acts of Thomas demonstrates, which only makes this argument a mad conspiracy by a raging Baptist unable to cope with history.

Now let's show some Jewish Paganism from scholarship quoted and not hidden unlike the one Baptist ITT who cant do his homework properly:

In some cases pilgrimage to the tombs of Jewish heroes and ances-tors clearly did occur. Even minor figures who are only briefly men-tioned in the Bible, such as the daughter of Jephthah, sometimes played important roles in local tradition and ritual (Ps.-Philo lAB 40:8-9). But interest seems to have been directed most frequently toward the tombs of patriarchs, matriarchs, and kings. The tombs of Abraham and Sarah, the twelve patriarchs, David, Solomon, and other similar figures seem to have been among the few tombs that were associated with known locations in the Second Temple period.179 Some of these sites may have been known because of persistent tra-ditions of pilgrimage that kept alive the memory of their location. The role of major ancestors and kings in Second Temple pilgrim-age traditions indicates that one of the primary reasons for pilgrim-age to the tombs of the dead was to reaffirm and express relationships of kinship and national identity.

The outstanding example of this is the shrine of Machpelah at Hebron. The enclosure wall built by Herod the Great to surround the tombs of the patriarchs was strikingly similar in proportion, plan, and construction to the wall that he built to enclose the temple mount.180 Jack Lightstone has observed that this indicates that the shrine at Machpelah had a role for contact with the sacred similar in ideological function and in national scope to the temple in Jerusalem.181 This implies that Jews believed that the patriarchs and ma-triarchs buried in Machpelah could still somehow render powerful assistance to their descendants. The importance of these ancestors in Jubilees, the Testament qf the 12 Patriarchs, and other Second Temple literature implies that these figures played a powerful role in the Jewish mythology of this period. No other Jewish tombs in the Second Temple period seem to have attracted anywhere near the amount of attention as the tombs at Machpelah. The central role of kinship and national identity in Jewish pilgrimage to the tombs of heroes and ancestors is most vividly demonstrated in the unrivaled impor-tance attributed to these tombs.

This presents an important contrast with the Christian cult of the saints. Peter Brown has noted that in the cult of the saints Christian claims of ideological kinship often conflicted directly with and super-seded the claims of close biological kinship. 182 Social relationships that existed among living Christians were thus often projected into the realm of the dead. Christians who sought benefits from dead saints extended to these dead saints many of the same expectations that they directed toward living individuals who had charismatic powers. In contrast, the benefits that Jews expected to receive from dead ancestors were based on an extension of the social obligations that operated along kinship lines between older and younger gener-ations among the living. Jews expected blessings from their ances-tors just as any child expected to receive assistance from his or her parents and grandparents. Pilgrimage to the tombs of Jewish heroes and ancestors was therefore inspired by a conviction that elders had social obligations toward children that continued even after death. 183

Children also had social obligations to elders. Thus in some cases actions on behalf of the dead were undertaken to fulfill the obliga-tions that living Jews owed to their ancestors. The framework for understanding these actions is essentially the same as that of the so-cial obligation of each Jew to care for his or her aged parents and for orphans, widows, the poor, and other members of Jewish society who could not help themselves. Like actions undertaken on behalf of these individuals, actions on behalf of the dead were considered meritorious deeds that would be rewarded by God.184 Jews who demonstrated concern for the dead and their tombs therefore did not always do so to derive benefit directly from the dead. - PILGRIMAGE AND HOLY SPACE IN LATE ANTIQUE EGYPT, pages 139-140

>>4906

And yet, once again, I ask the question: why the sudden seismic shift from corpse revulsion to corpse worship by groups that abhorred such things after 129 years of virtually no evidence of such a things in Christianity?:

You also ignored other links that show greater instances of syncretism than you are admitting:

>>4902

(not to mention Polycarp died in what is now known as modern Turkey: an area far closer to these syncretic kingdoms)

>>4910

The shift is due to the cult of martyrs and care of the dead already present in Second Temple Judaism. Which makes more sense than saying it came from Hinduism or Buddhism. Why? Because awareness and trade doesnt warrant these as sources that causally influenced the Christian cultus.

Jewish views of impurity did not hinder veneration of Tombs of Prophets or to see those sites as sacred or even conduct commemorative meals for the dead.

Anyone who also read about Asia Minor knows the Paganism there is, Hellenistic, not Buddhism influenced. All you do is run around when evidence is presented. Like a mexican jumping bean

>>4911

>>4912

1)Why didn't you just say this earlier. and…

2)It still doesn't explain how Jewish rites, which seem indistinguishable from Greco-Roman rites at the time in this case, turned into full blown corpse and relic worshiping and kissing, once again, in light of literal impurity regulations, and revulsion by even the Greco-Roman Pagans.

3)The material in this link >>4912 , particularly the parallel Hellenistic influenced hero/heroine cults, and requesting the prayers of dead ancestors unconfirmed to be in paradise, not even "Saints" in the Cathodox sense, sounds disturbingly just straight pagan. And all the more disturbing if this is where praying to the Saints ultimately comes from. As if the Hellenizers of the Maccabean wars made some headway. This does not sound like a Judaism that the God of the Old Testament (or New Testament for the matter) would be pleased with.

So, once again, how did we get from "Honoring graves a lot, to a point that seems Hellenized and would make OT God furious, but handling corpses outside of burial is gross", to "Hugging, kissing and parading corpses through the streets!"?

There's also the matter of Christian prayer ropes, Rosaries, etc. not arriving on the scene until the 3rd to 5th centuries at the earliest. With the similarities between them and much earlier Hindu and Buddhist prayer beads much more obvious, along with more time for Hindusit/Buddhist influences to simmer.

Meanwhile, your own church's adoption of this prayer format is even more recent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_prayer_beads

>>4916

1) Because of the sancity associated with the saint's remains. In fact it is as scholars like Paul Bradshaw and Maxwell E Johnson puts it, eucharistisized and hence made holy. The fact that in Martyrdom of Polycarp moments before his own death that his body had the smell of baked bread and Eucharistic pattern gives this validity and explains the leap to that which former practice already laid groundwork for

2)Hebrews cites Maccabees positively to an audience who arent Jewish but Christian. So if such a practice is so condemnable, why did he cite the book which actually mentions part of this where sacrifices are offered for the dead. In fact given widespread practice of care of the Tombs, why is the New Testament not concerned with it? Any allusion just doesnt say it is idolatrous!

3)saying it comes from Hinduism or Buddhism when zero contact is or even causal one for that matter is established is simply a strech and you desparately hating reality

>>4916

What confounds me further about this, is that, if I understand correctly, with notable exceptions, like Elijah and Moses, the vast majority of even the righteous Jews were asleep in the land of the dead, until Jesus' sacrifice literally liberated them. What would be the point of prayers to deceased family members under these circumstances?

>>4920

This shows you dont even understand the Jewish worldview. Ancestral merit derived from past deeds of past figures like Abraham is a thing in 2nd Temple Judaism. Cases lile Elisah's bones also show the sancity of the remains of the righteous which…Philo the Jew also believes in regarding Joseph's remains.

Because of that ancestral merit and sancity alongside Jewish views that the elder is to give blessings to the younger and the younger is to care for the elders as pointed out >>4909, it is not a surprise why it is done!

>>4919

1) Heard this argument before. Once again, when Jesus refers to eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, it's a Jewish expression meaning taking on the whole person. The Imitation of Christ. Everywhere else he mentions the Eucharist as a memorial, and not something salvific. The closest being the mentioning of the taking of the Lord's Supper worthily. Anything mentioned as being salvific has to do with faith and repentance and obeying God's commandments.

2) I've heard the Hebrews 11 being a reference to Macabees argument before as well, and that's a bit of a stretch. Lots of martyrs, prophets, etc. went through those actions. Not to mention the deuterocanon, at best status of Macabees, with even the prayers to the dead verses, blatantly violating the Catholic doctrines of purgatory and mortal vs. venial sin, when it was officially instituted as God inspired doctrine at Trent to spite the Protestants.

3) Considering such prayer beads arrived late enough for Hindiusm/Buddhism to have an influence, and experiencing first hand the fact that even the holiest of prayers can be reduced to vain repetitions/white noise if said long enough, I don't see much of a difference between the two. Say the Jesus Prayer once, or a couple of time with sincerity, and it's powerful. Say it hundreds of times in a row and it starts to become mindless white noise. No different than a gobbledygook Buddhist mantra. Same thing with saying the exact same prayers with minor variance, every single Sunday. There's a reason why there's literally books like this being published:

https://store.ancientfaith.com/help-im-bored-in-church/

Also, you're still dodging the ancestor prayer question. I'm sorry, but praying to Saints is bad enough, but praying to your ancestors, is pure unadulterated paganism. No ands ifs or buts about it. No tap dancing around this issue. Period. What's more disturbing, is that you imply that you're perfectly okay with such a blatantly pagan practice as long as it bolsters your viewpoint. Not considering whether God would be pleased with this. Maybe the Jews were under the Roman's thumb and their temple decimated in 70 AD for a reason. The Pharisees who antagonized Jesus were Talmudists under Babylonian influence from the exile. The Gospels give a clear picture of Jesus not being pleased with the state of affairs at all, and arriving just in time to clean house. Throughout the OT, are more examples of God punishing the Hebrews when they turn away from him a just a little bit, for me to even list here. And from reading your words, you ought to be familiar with these examples anyway.

>>4922

The more you describe Second Temple Judaism, the more it sounds like a den of thieves in need of whipping. Again, you focus on prophets, but not the family ancestor issue.

>>4923

>1) Heard this argument before. Once again, when Jesus refers to eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, it's a Jewish expression meaning taking on the whole person. The Imitation of Christ. Everywhere else he mentions the Eucharist as a memorial, and not something salvific. The closest being the mentioning of the taking of the Lord's Supper worthily. Anything mentioned as being salvific has to do with faith and repentance and obeying God's commandments.

To further elaborate on this, think back to the Samaritan woman at the well. When she asks "where can I get this water, from whence I can never thirst?" in the same manner that those in John 6 ask for the bread that will never leave them hungry, God is not referring to himself as literal water to drink, but of faith and belief in Him and his words. The Samaritan woman is so convicted, she literally goes and evangelizes her whole town.

>>4924

Then there's the issue of so-called incorruptible corpses being in air tight boxes, or being covered with wax masks and parts to hide the obvious decay, along with the cottage industry of "relics" of questionable origin to attract tourism.

>>4923

1)Red herring because I only explained early Christian views in relation to their Eucharistic theology. Using muh John 6 irrelevant because nowhere did I say it is based on an exegesis of that verse.

Also, you Zwlinglian, most NT scholars today now agree that the Eucharist works like the Jewish Passover, as a true participation, but not literal of course, in the death of Christ. The NIGCT Commentary on 1Corinthians even make this clear regarding the Supper. Participants self idenitfy with the death of Christ as if the moment is present. That makes your whole assertion silly and marks of biblical illiteracy.

But of course as said, this is a red herring because I did not invoke or consider the New Testament's view of Eucharist at all.

2)Except it isnt. Even Protestant scholars like Peter T O'Brien accepts the reference to Maccabees here. Injecting Catholic beliefs like Purgatory is yet again another red herring as I only referred to prayers and sacrifices for the dead, not whether Purgatory or Trent is true or what they say. Even more biblically illiterate, saying it is a stretch without showing why the allusion makes no sense is not an argument and shows ignorance on how various NT authors use intertextualities and echoes to cite OT Scripture. I dont care whether Maccabees is Scripture or not here, this is not my concern as the issue is veneration of the dead and cult of relics.

3)And again, proof by assertion. If any those could just as easily emerged from appropriation of Hellenistic philosophical concepts as Philo who is ascetic leaning does and even follow the earlier Jewish style and patterns of prayer, many of which are formalized despite private prayers being used. In fact anyone familiar with how Jewish prayers work know that long winded benedictons are a thing which Protestant scholar Peter T O Brien argues that this is what Paul does in Ephesians following Jewish liturgical berakah prayer. Repetition is easily explained by using rhetorical principles of education which uses images as a way to transform the soul and following the Pslams which one has a very repetitive pattern and the prayer of the hosts of Heaven when they worshipped God which is said unendingly.

Again failure on your part and shows how you dont do your homework. Shown by zero evidence to establish any causal link of inference.

The Gospels never adhore the Jewish practice of venerating tombs and Jesus being against Pharisees and Sauducees says nothing about this. Why? Because many Jews at the time dislike the temple establishment with some like Qumranic Jews forming their own secretarian group! Earliest Christians also worshipped at the Synagogue and in Acts 2, we see Christian Baptism presented similar to John's Baptism which is based on Jewish Proselyte Baptism. So again, non argument. I only desire to show how the NT background is against your view and how early Christians oppose you. Here it is noteworthy how you jump from topic to topic playing like a fallacious Gish Gallop. You run around like a mad dog when the evidence is placed before you. This is what a Baptist does when he cannot handle the truth. Ignore the argument, say red herrings and make unsubstantiated remarks by fallacy of proof by assertion

>>4923

>help I am bored in church

Like dancing around in Hillsong and destroying Scripture is any better. In fact I know many ex Baptists who fled to Lutheranism and Anglicanism because they find Baptist worship boring and hollow. I cant blame them when Zwlinglian is all you have, plus eisegesis

Wherefore, beloved, flee and avoid such observances: for you have received release, that you should no more bind yourselves; and do not load yourselves again with that which our Lord and Savior has lifted from you. And do not observe these things, nor think them unclean- ness….For in the Second Legislation [the ceremonial legislation of the Old Testament], if one touch a dead man or a tomb, he is baptized [obliged to go through ritual purification]; but do you, according to the Gospel and according to the power of the Holy Spirit, come together even in the cemeteries , and read the Holy Scriptures , and without demur perform your ministry and your supplication to God; and offer an acceptable Eucharist [italics added], the likeness of the royal body of Christ, both in your congregations and in your cemeteries and on the departures of them that sleep [the dead] - pure bread that is made with fire and sanctified with invocations - and without doubting pray and offer for them that are fallen asleep. For they who have believed in God, according to the Gospel, even though they should sleep, they are not dead; as our Lord said to the Sadducees: Concerning the resur- rection of the dead , have ye not read that which is written: I am the God of Abraham , and the God of Isaac , and the God of facobf And he is not the God of the dead , but of the living. And Elisha the prophet also, after he had slept and was a long while (dead), raised up a dead man; for his body touched the body of the dead and quickened and raised it up. But this could not have been were it not that , even when he was fallen asleep , his body was holy and filled with the Holy Spirit. For this cause therefore do you approach without restraint to those who are at rest , and hold them not unclean.-Disascallia Apostolium

What is funny is Syriac Christianity early on is more Jewish in nature yet what does this document from 230AD says?

>>4926

1) Exegesis of text is a red herring. Most scholars agree (yet what have we come to see about popularity vs. truth, time and again.)

2) >>4931 Yes, I'm sure O'Brien and others can squeeze it in. Any verse in relation to martyr/prophet hardship can fit here.

3) Your only response to theory…is more theory. Yet God warns about "vain repetitions" for a reason. He knew exactly who he was talking and warning us about, and apparently early Christians did too; to no avail, because Hesychasm and Lectio Divino just materialized out of Second Temple Judaism…. (besides fancy long robes and those who call themselves "Spiritual Fathers" in various hierarchies, no matter how much these verses are danced around by those who violate them.)

4) And once again, you ignore that praying to dead family ancestors is directly pagan, while saying: "Well the Bible says nothing about it!" While weakly citing some NT text. Do I really need to quote scripture where God directly sets the Jews apart from the pagans around them, and says they are to be nothing like them in their ways?

5) >>4927 Because all Baptist churches are Hillsong. In contrast to the beautiful hollowness of Eucharistic liturgical service.

I'm just going to finish it here on this point. Why is just about every Eucharistic liturgical church is compromised in some fashion? Catholics and Orthodox with extra-biblical teachings; your own Anglican and especially Episcopal churches have become havens of modernism and LGBT enabling; Lutheranism ranges from "conservative but proto-Calvinist due to monergistic salvation", like LCMS and WELS, to outright all aboard the degeneracy train like ELCA; Presbyterians tend to be full-blown hard Calvinists; Methodism has only recently begun to possibly clean-up it's act regarding LGBT. Evangelicalism isn't much better and has it's own share of crazies: Charismatics, Televangelists, Prosperity and Church Growth Movement hucksters who want Church to be a three ring circus/rock concert; the SBC seems to be showing signs of early rot, whether it be association and advocation of Messianic Judaism, cozying with the aforementioned crazies, females in pastor positions, or the current dramatic resurgence of hard Calvinism. Honestly, a plain ordinary little Baptist church is the only sane choice I've found so far.

Then we come to the general worldliness I find in most high liturgical churches. For all the splendor and magnificence of the ritual and the robes and the supposed supernatural communion nature of the Eucharist empowering believers to be better Christians, the parishioners tend to shockingly contrast this with their worldliness. Even you.

To be quite frank, as a witness for your church, I don't take you seriously as a Christian. There are times where you show a zeal for scholarship that's admirable, but it ends there. Overall I can't tell if you're just misguidedly overzealous, or if you're just a very sophisticated troll with too much time on your hands. Whether it be your early spamming nature I've encountered in the /christian/ Baptist General and then in your early posts on this board; or the fact that you've been caught red-handed bearing false-witness for your cause: >>2210 ; or your ironically proud, arrogant, puffed up and condescending manner you've displayed throughout all of our interactions. Ironic, because you've leveled all of these attributes at me. Not to mention the additional hypocrisy of accusing me of dancing around issues and employing mental gymnastics, and being a mad, raging conspiracy loony (in spite of the fact that I've had to literally drag certain issues out of you, and there are still some issues you are still blatantly dodging, and have done in the past.) Oh yeah, and misrepresentation, as well as accusations of biblical illiteracy, in spite of brushing aside exegesis, along with issues in your scholarship that contradict biblical principles in disturbing ways.

There's no nice way to say this, but based on you being the fruit of your church, I want nothing to do with the tree. Beautiful liturgies, and zealous scholarship are nothing more than a Halloween costume over questionable character at best.

So have fun having the last word, or more accurately words, as you're more than likely going to be spamming "red herring" and "non-argument", and some variation of "crazy Baptist" at me, along with another .jpeg or two of scholarship. You claim I hate and can't cope with reality. Yet you yourself seem to hate the reality of how one should conduct themselves that comes with walking in Christ. I pray for the best for you regardless, but this will more than likely be our last interaction. Or perhaps I should pray it is not, and perhaps someday we should interact on better terms, God willing.

God Bless.

>>4936

1)Non argument as I actually explained this right after noting the wide scholarly consensus. Saying truth over consensus here is a non argument because you cannot even provide ample proof for your claim. By right I should not even entertain your red herring to my argument because it only detract from the point that the Eucharistic theology of early Christians factor into the growth of the cult of relics.

2)not an argument. Come back when you actually know what intertextuality and literary echo are. There is a reason why Protestants who dont take Macabees as Inspired can see allusion there. Because the verses matches the motiff of the verses in Macabees. Of course whether Hebrews see it as Inspired is another question but the allusion shows that the author reveres the texts.

3)Except structures of Jewish prayers are known and patterns can be discerned easily from textual evidence. Even the NT follows the known structure. Saying "muh theory" is not an argument when your stupid view demands the view that somehow despite Hellenist and Roman Pagans not taking influence from Hindu Buddhism on the treatment of the dead, Christians do in spite of zero evidence establishing any plausible causal link. In contrast, Second Temple ideas are a key backdrop to the New Testament. This differentiates my point from yours. It takes context seriously and let known evidence speak for itself or provide reasonable deductions.

4)The rest is a non argument. Why? Because Baptists have unbiblical theology, Liturgical conservatives arent the ones dying and smart Evangelicals and Calvinists are learning the importance of sacraments which even some Baptists are starting to be aware of. Want something shallow and hollow? Look at how a Baptist have to oppose the context of Scripture, make excuses when the Greek of the New Testament is brought up. And bear false witness right here and now thinking it validates him. That is the Baptist apologetics. Want some bad exegesis and misrepresentation? Look at yourself and how you runaway when proven wrong on Norse and Germanic Paganism. I have to do your own homework for you and show how your own views are false on this from your own sources which I already done showing how Brown's own view still holds as they dont venerate the dead ala Cult of Relics in Christianity. In fact you cannot even provide any source from Roman or Greek Paganism, the one that matters in actually arguing for Paganic influence.

You even claim Jews would be repulsed by corpse worship and when Jews venerate tombs, just without direct contact with the dead, you turn tail and runaway from your original view and claim they were Hellenized but cannot explain the silence of the New Testament on this and its positive citation of a Hellenized Judaism text.

With nowhere to go, you make the outlandish theory that the cult of relics was influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism eventhough zero plausible causal relation can be established, save for awareness of Hindu philosophers and the Buddha in a few early Christian authors who if any were more influenced by the Hellenic culture which they belong to, not Indian!

This is the fruit of Baptists, shallow theology and eisegesis. No wonder you decline. And also, good job for being illiterate on the liturgical churches. If any it is making them more Baptist like that all those things crept in! The disregard for liturgy and Patristics is the cause. There is a reason why the Orthodox dont have it as bad as the Anglicans or Lutherans. There is a reason why ACNA parishes arent facing the decline. Because they take worship and the Bible seriously. Travel back to the New Testament church and you wont find a cathedral but you find them worshipping in the same liturgical manner, as the use of Jewish prayers in texts like the Didache and Ephesians show.

>>4936

Also notice that unable to face the magnitude of evidences against his view and its absurdity, the Baptist launch into a huge rant and tirade. He whines and tries to act holier than thou when he has been debunked again and again. This is the fruit of the Baptists