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?
The Bible does say that he prayed to the Father, but how much of that is a fact? For instance, on the night of His betrayal, He is quoted as asking the Father if He could take away the bitter cup...but it also says that all the Apostles were asleep and that Jesus was by Himself. So, how do they know what He did? Who witnessed it?
The Apostles by and large saw Him as the Jewish messiah and as such, being human, He would pray to the Father along with other pious Jews. Being fully human, it only makes sense that He would pray to the triune God and not only to the Father.
Do you, Reformed, ever pray to the Holy Spirit? Or to Jesus alone? or to the Holy Trinity? I have a feeling, the Protestants pray to the Father but add "through our Lord Jesus Christ," treating Him only as a Mediator, a Conduit, and not as someone equal to the Father or the Spirit. If so, then your prayers betray a grave Trinitarian flaw.
Absolutely not. Jesus confirmed that He is the (literal) Son of God even though the Jews (including +Peter) did not believe it. +Peter was saying that He is the moshiach (Jewish messiah), not that He is divine. No one believed that at that time. But Christ knew and He affirmed it.
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
The word used is sugennhV (sugennes), which means a kin (compatriot), of the same kind, blood relative but not the first cousin.
The Greek word aneyioV, anepsios, which means sister's son, is the first cousin. The word for sister (same father and mother) is adeljh, adelphe.
So, calling Elizabeth sugennes implies that they were related, but she was neither her first cousin nor her sister.
The idea that their mothers were sisters comes from St. Hyppolitus, a prolific writer of the 3rd century AD, who is a saint only because of his martyrdom; his teachings were not always orthodox.
Most serious Bibles will use the word "kinswoman" or "relative." I can't say why the King James uses "cousin," but given the background of the KJV I am not the least bit surprised it would be off on that account too.
You are like a cornucopia of surprises, FK! :) We know that the Church interprets the scripture as we do today because of what the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers wrote about it at the end of the first, and through the second centuries, all the way through the 8th (end of patristic period). So, it is not just a 'claim' or 'belief,' but something a little more concrete.
The divine liturgy underwent some non-essential cosmetic changes, but the liturgy is essentially the same as it was used 1,700 years ago.
The languages of the divine liturgy are liturgical languages based on Greek, specifically developed for the liturgical service. As far as I know, they are all capable of expresisng the same concepts, word by word, as the Greek original. The problems with translations started when Luther decided to go "native" and invent literary German on the fly.
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?
The biblical period predates Christianity as a religion. Consequently it words reflect their usage and consciousness of a specific period of time.
Christianity retained Judaic words but assumed different meanings, in line with the new belief. Thus the words such as "the Spirit of God," the "Son of God," "Messiah," the "World to Come," the "End Times," the Satan, etc. attained different, even radically unrelated meanings in Christianity from what they used to, and still mean in Judaism.