Prayers are worship, FK. I was not aware that God worships Himself.
Kosta: To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance in the entire New Testament where the Apostles actually pray to Jesus!...
FK: So for you in SOME cases, Biblical silence de facto means that a thing DID happen, such as all the Mariology stuff, but in other cases, Biblical silence means de facto that a thing DID NOT happen, such as prayer to Christ
The only thing the Orthodox Church teaches as dogma about the Blessed Ever-Virgin is that she is the Theotokos, the Birthgiver of God. That is the essential part of the Christology of the Church.
But, it is not just the silence of the Bible regarding Apostles not praying to the Risen Christ; it is the fact that they pray to God throughout the whole New Testament but never to Jesus! It is in the fact that Paul says that God raised Jesus and not that Jesus raised Himself, or, on another occasion, that the head of Christ is God. Such statements explain in more than silence why the Apostles never prayed to Christ.
If your test is that a simple sentence should be read literally, then what do you make of these?:
Matt 16:16 : Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Peter answered: "You are the anointed one (moshiach), the human beloved of God, who is here to restore the Kingdom of Israel."
This is based on the meaning of key words "christos" and "son of God" as it was understood by everyone in the 1st century Israel. Just as the word "gay" was understood to mean something completely different 50 years ago. It's not a matter of "allegory," but of fact. In fact, the modern Christian interpretation of Peter's reply is out of context with the Judaic meaning from which peter was answering, as much as it is in context with the Christian mindset.
Matt 13:55 : Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
In context of the Middle Eastern culture, it reads "Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his cousins/brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"
To this day, in Mediterranean cultures the first cousins are called "brothers" or "sisters." This terminology was a way for the society to prevent close intermarriages. The Apostolic Church always taught, as far as I know, that the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born, just as she remained a virgin when she conceived. Therefore, we (Orthodox/Catholics) read the word 'brothers" as cousins.
Again, it is a straight interpretation based on proper linguistic, cultural context and unchanged theological teaching.
If someone who knows nothing about American culture stumbles upon a word "cool" it would be highly possible that he or she would not interpret it correctly without proper contextual and cultural knowledge of the American culture.
That's why just "cold" reading of the Bible does not lead to proper understanding and that's why Christ established His Church to safeguard the interpretation held by the Apostles.
John 10:30 : I and the Father are one ."
John emphasized Jesus' divinity. The Synoptic Gospels emphasize His humanity. Given that John wrote last, at the end of the first century—again in context of the contemporary events of his time, and mindsets, the break with Judaism (c 90 AD), false messiahs, etc.—and the fact that the other Gospels do not stress Christ's divinity, John establishes a simple statement of who Jesus is.
These are all simple sentences and you do not take any of them literally
I take them literally in context when, where and by whom they were written.
In that case you must believe that the Gospels are lying when they report that Jesus prayed to the Father. Since these same Gospels also report that Jesus taught them HOW to pray to the Father, you must also throw out the Lord's Prayer.
FK: "If your test is that a simple sentence should be read literally, then what do you make of these?: "
Matt 16:16 : Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Kosta: "Peter answered: "You are the anointed one (moshiach), the human beloved of God, who is here to restore the Kingdom of Israel."
So when Jesus immediately answered with this ...:
Matt 16:17 : Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
... you are saying that Jesus was lying, or that the Father lied in His revelation. OK.
Therefore, we (Orthodox/Catholics) read the word 'brothers" as cousins.
Then why doesn't the angel of the Lord say to Mary: "Luke 1:36 : 36 And, behold, thy [SISTER] Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren." KJV
That's why just "cold" reading of the Bible does not lead to proper understanding and that's why Christ established His Church to safeguard the interpretation held by the Apostles.
But you claim that your Church has interpreted the scriptures the same for 1,700 years. You say your liturgies are all the same as they were then, DESPITE all the differences in language that you're talking about in all that time. That doesn't match. Plus, you seem to be able to read translations of the earliest Fathers and know what's going on. Why is it that the words of the Bible mean the opposite of (or something completely different from) what they say in many cases, but the early Fathers can be read straight out?