Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
242

Fishlips, today is the day of the Resurection. It is the Orthodox pascha or passover day. I wanted to list the old testament readings which we read on Saturday morning for discussion:

Genesis 1:1-13 ? Isaiah 60:1-16 ? Exodus 12:1-11 ? Jonah (entire book) ? Joshua 5:10-15 ?
      Exodus 13:20-15:19 ? Zephaniah 3:8-15 ? 1 Kings 17:8-24 ? Isaiah 61:10-62:5 ? Genesis 22:1-18 ?
      Isaiah 61:1-9 ? 2 Kings 4:8-37 ? Isaiah 63:11-64:5 ? Jeremiah 31:31-34 ?
      Daniel 3:1-23, and the Song of the Holy Children

First, Genesis 1:1-13 as it is a parallel to John Chapter 1 showing forth that the same Word from John was the word of God at creation.

Isiah 60: 1-16.
The children have rebelled.
The Jewish rituals must pass away.
But God has a plan for salvation.

Exodus 12: 1-11
The institution of one such ritual, the passover.

Jonah

God has mercy on the Gentiles. Did they adopt the Torah, the law of Israel-no. They stopped their wickedness, but no one has suggested that they stopped their Pagan rituals. We know historically that they did not and God certainly foresaw this. There is a difference between drinking animal blood and infant sacrifice and homosexuality and perversion.

Joshua 5: 10-15

The Jews have failed to accept the promise.

Exodus 13-15:
God delivers Israel as they pass through the Red Sea. This is a symbol of the Resurection-passing out of Hades.

Zephaniah 3: 8-15
Then (in the future) I will change the people of all the nations.

God has a plan for the salvation of the Gentiles.

1 Kings 17: 8-24

A symbol of the Eucharist, and an act of Resurection-together hmmm.

Isaiah 61:10-62-5

A foreshadowing of the divine marriage of Christ to the Church

Genesis: 22: 1-18

The sacrifice of the first born AND more importantly proof of the resurrection, for God had promised that through Isaac would come Abraham’s descendants. We take this as evidence that Abraham knew that God could raise Isaac from the dead.

Isaiah: 61: 1-9
Plan for salvation for his rebelious people.

2 Kings:
Again a foreshadowing of the Eucharist AND an act of resurrection-together.

Isaiah 63-64
The coming of Christ God profesied

Jeremiah:
I will write a new covenant in their hearts.

The old covenant will be fulfilled

Not really trying to make a point here, but that Orthodoxy is intensely biblical. These readings were among the final instruction for converts who originally were all baptized at that service each year.

243

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
OK Stella let’s have it.

Where did I lie?

Also, you have not replied to my post. I’d love to hear what you have to say. It’s on page 9 just to help you find it. I’ve been slicing and dicing mert’s ridiculous reasoning all morning so my earlier post has been a little buried.[/quote]

Which reasoning? First you propose an incomplete verse which says no one has seen God, and then you leave out the second half which in Greek says:

…except as he is revealed in his son who is truly God who is in the bosom of the Father.

Then you said you agreed with this translation. And that Jesus was truly the son of God (a word in form in the original Greek which independent scholars agree means God).

244

[quote]makkun wrote:
And to Fishlips again:
stellar_horizon wrote:
According to your own “common sense”, you’ve just damned yourself. Sleep easy for two reasons though; (1) you simply have poor “common sense” and …
makkun wrote:
Wow, I thought damning someone was for a deity or higher being. And the “poor common sense” line shows your accusatory style of debate and your view on other peoples’ viewpoints. It does though, quite clearly imply your looking down on other participants within the debate. Dare I say “holier-than-them”…?[/quote]

Perhaps I took a facetious tone with Fishlips when I explained a previous post. But make no mistake, I never said he was damned. There was a previous post concerning Revelations that me and him were in the process of debating. Fishlips said, according to his literal interpretation of a passage therein, that anyone who adds/subtracts from God’s written scriptures would be damned. He also assumed this passage insinuates that all oral expressions about Jesus Christ are null & void (such as those preserved by the Orthodox Christian Church from ancient times). I then quoted an Old Testament passage in a literal fashion and defeated his argument by exhibiting that a congruent statement is found in Deuteronomy (written hundreds of years earlier). Thus I proved that the common sense he applies in understanding the Revelations passage and his critique of oral traditions of the early Church is flawed.

If you weren’t busy acting like a donkey and read the original post on the matter, you’d see Fishlips was the one who cited that common sense was his tool for deciphering passages in the Bible. I then pointed to his common sense as being poor because this is what he’d used to lead him to a false assumption.

Humans shouldn’t use common sense to decipher Holy Scriptures because that’s what it means to form one’s own private interpretations - there is a high risk of error, ie. which Fishlips displays in this present example.

Anyways, I further explained that Fishlips was not damned on the account of him hailing the New Testament as a holy guide.

245

mertdawg,
If I was you, I wouldn’t put any further time or effort into a theological dialogue with Fishlips. By his very own confession, Fishlips denounces the Divinity of Jesus Christ. There are other interested Christians that may want to pose questions, comments, or learn about the the Orthodox Christian Faith. Save your energy. God reveals Himself to those whom He wills.

Your brother in the Faith.
Peace be with you.

246

At this point, it seems to me that we all have tended to bring this discussion off the issue.

I would wish to return to the main theme as it has developed which seems to be Fishlips argument that Orthodoxy runs contrary to parts of the Bible.

Fishlips and I both have pointed out instances were we hold the bible as literal, and instances where we hold the bible as figurative, although we may disagree on which parts-am I correct here?

Fishlips, can we look at the ways you feel Orthodoxy runs contrary to the bible.

Here are some that I believe you have brought up that we can debate.

  1. The Orthodox theology of Eucharist, specifically Drinking Jesus blood goes against the Torah.

  2. You argue that the bible does not present God as trinity.

  3. You argue that the bible was an independently inspired document which was only later taken to be part of the Jewish and Christian worship services, while I believe that the bible and worship services were developed together in an interactive way: In other words that the Old Testament was written to be part of Jewish worship and the New Testament to be part of Christian worship while you think that these were stand alone but taken for use later into the services.

  4. You argue that the Bible should be the STAND ALONE source of Christian theology.

Any qualifications or additions here? Lets begin.

247

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
makkun wrote:
And to Fishlips again:
stellar_horizon wrote:
According to your own “common sense”, you’ve just damned yourself. Sleep easy for two reasons though; (1) you simply have poor “common sense” and …
makkun wrote:
Wow, I thought damning someone was for a deity or higher being. And the “poor common sense” line shows your accusatory style of debate and your view on other peoples’ viewpoints. It does though, quite clearly imply your looking down on other participants within the debate. Dare I say “holier-than-them”…?

Perhaps I took a facetious tone with Fishlips when I explained a previous post. But make no mistake, I never said he was damned. There was a previous post concerning Revelations that me and him were in the process of debating. Fishlips said, according to his literal interpretation of a passage therein, that anyone who adds/subtracts from God’s written scriptures would be damned. He also assumed this passage insinuates that all oral expressions about Jesus Christ are null & void (such as those preserved by the Orthodox Christian Church from ancient times). I then quoted an Old Testament passage in a literal fashion and defeated his argument by exhibiting that a congruent statement is found in Deuteronomy (written hundreds of years earlier). Thus I proved that the common sense he applies in understanding the Revelations passage and his critique of oral traditions of the early Church is flawed.

If you weren’t busy acting like a donkey and read the original post on the matter, you’d see Fishlips was the one who cited that common sense was his tool for deciphering passages in the Bible. I then pointed to his common sense as being poor because this is what he’d used to lead him to a false assumption.

Humans shouldn’t use common sense to decipher Holy Scriptures because that’s what it means to form one’s own private interpretations - there is a high risk of error, ie. which Fishlips displays in this present example.

Anyways, I further explained that Fishlips was not damned on the account of him hailing the New Testament as a holy guide.[/quote]

Point taken. Funny though that there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding your posts in that way. I understand that you argue on the basis of scripture - not that that could have been overlooked ;-).
But I would say that this is part of the problem when reading your posts - you make it quite clear that you are absolutely convinced the view of your church is the correct one, and you are using some strong words in that context.
I’m glad that I seem to be misunderstanding your words more than you mean them in the way the tend to come over. That’s good, and I am happy to take my share of the responsibility for that.

This is becoming more and more fun.
Makkun

248

Matthew 22:43
Why did the spirit inspire David to call the Messiah Lord?

(because he was before David)

Matthew 23:2
The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are authorized interpretors of Moses’ Law.

(the law requires interpretation. Men are set aside and given authority to do the interpreting)

249

Matthew 18:18
Whatever you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted (bound and loosed) in heaven.

The apostles interpret the new law.

250

John 1:1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

(Clearly the word is Jesus, I mean is there anyone who wants to debate that? Now tell me what this verse means if not God became man.)

251

Fishlips: How do you interpret Peter’s vision in Acts 10.

Also, do you personally follow ALL of the regulations of the Torah?

252

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
OK Stella let’s have it.

Where did I lie?

Also, you have not replied to my post. I’d love to hear what you have to say. It’s on page 9 just to help you find it. I’ve been slicing and dicing mert’s ridiculous reasoning all morning so my earlier post has been a little buried.

Which reasoning? First you propose an incomplete verse which says no one has seen God, and then you leave out the second half which in Greek says:

…except as he is revealed in his son who is truly God who is in the bosom of the Father.

Then you said you agreed with this translation. And that Jesus was truly the son of God (a word in form in the original Greek which independent scholars agree means God).

[/quote]
You have most certainly misunderstood the thrust of this second half of John 1:18. The proper translation was to say ‘only-begotten god’ and not ‘Son’ at all, certainly not both expressions. The Expositor?s Greek Testament admits: ?The MS. [manuscript] authority favours the reading ???(the actual Greek letters won’t copy over) [god]; while the versions and the [Church] Fathers weigh rather in the opposite scale.? Why did the ‘Church Fathers’ (who believed Jesus was God) say ‘Son’ instead of ‘only-begotten god’? Because they feared anti-Trinitarians for whom ?this appellation [?only-begotten god?] happily distinguished Him [the Son] from the Father.?

Otherwise there is a striking contradiction from saying no one has seen God to saying Jesus is God whom many did see, moments later. Again, what is the point, then, of the first part of this scripture? Remember, others were called ‘gods’ in the bible too. When read correctly the scripture is harmonious: No one has seen God, the only-begotten god(Jesus in his divine nature) revealed (instructed others about) Him. Why is that? Because a human would instantaneously die at seeing God so he sent his Son to tell others about him.

Simple and clear

253

mertdawg,
An opponent to the Christian Faith alleges that the Bible is the only authority which man should abide by if man wishes to be righteous in God’s sight. This opponent, by his own confession, does not believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

We have substantiated the view that the Bible preserves fractions of the Truth (though it’s completely truthful), but still not in the entire Truth in the measure to which man is called. The Bible clearly instructs Christians to abide by both the oral and written traditions of the Apostles and early Church.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by WORD or our epistle.”

Nowhere does the Bible claim to be the complete authority on the Christian Faith, as this opponent asserts. As convenient as it may be to fill in the cracks of a belief system with mere speculation, the Christian Faith affords no such luxury. The Bible expresses that the Church is where the Truth is contained. To deny the truths preserved within the Church which Jesus Christ commissioned is sheer folly.

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

Furthermore, our opponent forms his own private interpretations on Scripture in attempts to prove his disbelief concerning Orthodox Christianity, contrary to the Bible’s warning against doing so.

2 Peter 1:20
“No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

When interpreting any scripture within the Bible, it defies reason for us to be guided by a foreign source, as our opponent admits doing. Rather, let those who seek proper interpretation of scripture go to the appropriate source - the one which produced and compiled the Bible by the power of the Holy Spirit (the Orthodox Christian Church); for only within Her framework can the Bible be sufficiently understood.

254

mertdawg,
This opponent validates the Bible as being authored by God, but refuses to submit to the authority of the Church which produced and compiled the Bible over numerous centuries (the Orthodox Christian Church). We have substantiated the view that anyone who corresponds with this principle exhibits sheer folly.

The same Apostles (who wrote the Holy Scriptures) taught & practiced many traditions of the Christian Life which are not contained within their writings.

The Fathers of the Church (who compiled the Holy Scriptures) bore Apostolic succession and followed, taught, & practiced all of the traditions of the Christian Life which the Apostles handed down via oral and written transmission. These Fathers of the Church had an opportunity over the centuries to put into writing all the early Church traditions. The Patristic writings & manuscripts stand today as accurate testimonies of the proper Christian Life; testimonies, which I should add, that have never contradicted the Bible.

Also, the same Fathers who compiled the Holy Scriptures beginning in 325 AD (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) established the Nicene Creed which professes Faith in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (Orthodox Christianity). Our opponent, who exemplifies a lack of healthy reasoning, refutes the power of the Holy Spirit in the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea where the Bible was in its initial stage of compilation and where Jesus Christ’s Divinity was firmly declared to all the world. In his attempts to challenge our reasoning, his folly is revealed.

255

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
You have most certainly misunderstood the thrust of this second half of John 1:18. The proper translation was to say ‘only-begotten god’ and not ‘Son’ at all, certainly not both expressions. The Expositor?s Greek Testament admits: ?The MS. [manuscript] authority favours the reading ???(the actual Greek letters won’t copy over) [god]; while the versions and the [Church] Fathers weigh rather in the opposite scale.? Why did the ‘Church Fathers’ (who believed Jesus was God) say ‘Son’ instead of ‘only-begotten god’? Because they feared anti-Trinitarians for whom ?this appellation [?only-begotten god?] happily distinguished Him [the Son] from the Father.?

Otherwise there is a striking contradiction from saying no one has seen God to saying Jesus is God whom many did see, moments later. Again, what is the point, then, of the first part of this scripture?
[/quote]

The Jews knew that no one had seen God, likewise the Greek concept of Logos was useeable. The contrast seems to me to be saying: Before Jesus, God was never seen by anyone, but now he is revealed in his incarnate form-Jesus. The term “never” refers to Chronological time, and Chronologically no one had ever seen God before Jesus came. As prophesied, God would destroy the curse of death in the flesh As Isaiah cried: Hell was embittered when it met you face to face!

So what does it mean to call Jesus the only Begotten god? You say that Jesus has a divine nature, what do you mean by this. And what is meant by the Holy Spirit? It sounds like you believe in (at least 2 Gods) but not the idea of them being united as 1 true God.

I also see you have come to believe in some kind of early Orthodox conspiracy to give the bible a trinitarian appearance. Is this true? So you accept the Church’s wisom in selecting in or out from among many books for the NT, but not to chose the apropriate version of those books? We left out books that suggested other Arian and Nestorian heresies as well. Do you suppose this was part of the plot.

Most important, I would just like for you to describe your view on the Trinity.

And, of course the other biblical issues raised. It was amazing to me that I could open the bible in a couple of places and within 2 pages find several verses contradictory to what you have been saying. It is brimming against you. Its so easy.

256

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
mertdawg,
An opponent to the Christian Faith alleges that the Bible is the only authority which man should abide by if man wishes to be righteous in God’s sight. This opponent, by his own confession, does not believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Might wanna look in the post right before yours regarding that divinity thing. Be aware, one can be of divine nature without being the Almighty.

We have substantiated the view that the Bible preserves fractions of the Truth (though it’s completely truthful), but still not in the entire Truth in the measure to which man is called. The Bible clearly instructs Christians to abide by both the oral and written traditions of the Apostles and early Church.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by WORD or our epistle.”
By your own admission you said earlier that the apostles mostly wrote when they couldn’t be there themselves. Why do you think then their WORDS would contain any information different than their epistles?

Nowhere does the Bible claim to be the complete authority on the Christian Faith, as this opponent asserts.

Hmmmm is that so? How’s about 2 Tim. 3:16,17 : “All Scripture is inspired of God…that the man of God may be FULLY competent, COMPLETELY EQUIPPED for every good work.”
One for me.

As convenient as it may be to fill in the cracks of a belief system with mere speculation, the Christian Faith affords no such luxury. The Bible expresses that the Church is where the Truth is contained. To deny the truths preserved within the Church which Jesus Christ commissioned is sheer folly.

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

Furthermore, our opponent forms his own private interpretations on Scripture in attempts to prove his disbelief concerning Orthodox Christianity, contrary to the Bible’s warning against doing so.

2 Peter 1:20
“No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

So far I’m the only one who has provided any reasoning on any scriptures. You just throw a scripture out there and hope people get YOUR INTERPRETATION of it. At least I explain why a scripture can be understood a certain way. You have an issue with someone avoiding points when you’ve never responded to my counter-points.

When interpreting any scripture within the Bible, it defies reason for us to be guided by a foreign source, as our opponent admits doing. Rather, let those who seek proper interpretation of scripture go to the appropriate source - the one which produced and compiled the Bible by the power of the Holy Spirit (the Orthodox Christian Church); for only within Her framework can the Bible be sufficiently understood.[/quote]

What ‘foreign source’ are you even referring to?

257

Matthew 28:18

Go, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

(God is trinity. “Baptize in the name”, not the names. “Teach them to observe” if the Bible stood alone, shouldn’t it say-give them a copy?)

258

FL; I would appreciate it if you could go back a page and read my 4 debate issues so I can be sure of what to demolish here.

259

mertdawg,
Our opponent proclaims,

It’s obvious our opponent fails to accept the early Church dogma on the the Holy Trinity which manifests Itself in Three Persons by the Essence of One God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is one of the deepest mysteries of the inner life of God. Since God in His essence is one, then all of God’s characteristics - His immortality, omnipotence, omnipresence, and others belong in equal measure to all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. In other words, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are eternal and omnipotent, as is God the Father.

Aside from Apostolic teachings that bore testimony to the Holy Trinity, the plurality of the Triune God is indicated in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

Genesis 1:26
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Genesis 3:22
“Behold, the man is become as one of us.”

Genesis 11:7
“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.”

1 John 5:7
“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”

Our opponent rejects the early Church dogma of a Triune God because he lacks the mental capacity, as do all humans, to understand this unfathomable mystery. The most edifying manner by which this dogma can be presented is described by the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril in 869 AD during a discussion with Muslims when he pointed to the sun and said to them: “See, in the sky there stands a shining circle, and from it light is born and warmth is emitted. God the Father, like the solar disk, is without beginning or end. From Him, the Son of God is born, like light from the sun, and as warmth goes from the sun together with rays of light, proceeds the Holy Spirit. Each can distinguish separately the solar disk, and light, and warmth, but the sun is one in the sky. So is the Holy Trinity: three Persons in Him, but one and indivisible God.”

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/god.htm

May this be edifying for all those rejecting the early Church dogma of a Holy Trinity.

260

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
See, in the sky there stands a shining circle, and from it light is born and warmth is emitted. God the Father, like the solar disk, is without beginning or end.[/quote]

Unfortunately, our sun had a beginning and will also have an end. Once it finishes fusioning hydrogen into helium and helium to other heavier elements, it will burn out.

The sun, it’s light and the warmth you feel aren’t three different distinct things; they’re all the same one thing.

Would you say that because a table has a surface, some legs and a color that it is a trinity of things in one?

Also, the Indians (from India) had their trinity god (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva all being aspects of the same god) way before the church decided to borrow the concept (it is a cool one, after all) and make it “dogma”.

Is someone who follows dogma a dogman?

261

Open question to my religious friends: Do you think that the world is coming to an end anytime soon? Like in the next thousand years or so? Seriously.