Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
442

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Of’ course, he later posted an e-mail to my friend that he may have been wrong, but now that he was a minister, this would be his career and could not change his message to his flock. What glory it would bring if he suddenly announced to them one Sunday morning that he was converting to Orthodox Christianity! In fear of losing his position of authority, this will probably never occur. He will retain his heresy because it pays the bills, he gets his glory, and because he doesn’t think he’s damned for not partaking in the fullness of the Christian Life available to him. [/quote]

I don’t understand the reasoning of your Pentacostal friend.

If the considers his faith to be in error and he knows which faith is right, how can he not leave to join the orthodox church?

It seems to me that he does not believe at all in God or anything else he preaches.

To teach a false faith in “good faith” so to speak is one thing. But to knowingly keep teaching when you’ve been made aware of it wrongness seems to me to be an extremely unwise decision.

It’s like mocking God simply because you like your job. Or, you don’t care because you don’t really believe; in which case you can teach that God is an invisible pink unicorn and have no qualms about it.

Of course, leading a congregation in faith when you’ve got none yourself is also dishonest.

443

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
In the beginning, God created Adam & Eve perfectly in His image. Then Adam & Eve brought about the Fall and introduced flaws into creation. Humans, except for Saints, continue to exist in this fallen state. God didn’t encourage Adam or Eve to eat from the Tree of knowledge of good & evil before their time, but Lucifer did.
pookie wrote:
On thing bothers me about this tale. If Eve, having not yet eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, didn’t yet know good from evil, how could she resist Lucifer? How was she to know that disobeying God was wrong (evil) and that rejecting Lucifer was the right (good) thing to do?

A purely innocent being (or whatever term you wish to apply to one who knows not good from evil) is not able to understand a moral choice correctly. One who cannot know good from evil cannot be expected to make “good” decisions. Any choice presented would appear morally equivalent, and choice would simply be by random whim.[/quote]

Obedience. Adam & Eve were to entrust their entire sustenance on God and on Him alone. As a little child that doesn’t realize why eating cookies before dinner will disrupt their appetite or even make them sick, a mother will hide the cookie jar or command her kids not to eat any junk food, expecting or hoping they obey. So it was with Adam & Eve.

They were simply asked to obey this one command; but Lucifer lied to Eve and seduced her by basically saying, “God has created you, but He doesn’t want you to be like Him, He doesn’t want you to be God-like. If you eat from the Tree of knowledge of good & evil, you will be even greater!”. The devil enticed Adam & Eve knowing that they’d lose union with God, a wish the devil had since God first created humans and hailed them as the prized jewels of creation - something the devil was extremely jealous about.

When Jesus Christ became Incarnate in the flesh, He brought it all back to the beginning, emphasizing that man should be faithful to God and to live by the commands & laws which would re-elevate man to the spiritual levels and beyond which Adam enjoyed in Paradise in the pre-fall era. The Orthodox Christian Saints have tasted from the Tree of knowledge of good & evil (as all humans have), being born in the fallen state, but have surpassed even Adam’s blissful union with God in Paradise before the Fall. Becoming vessels of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ and by struggling against earthly temptations, they’ve spiritually transformed and are metaphorically eating from the Tree of Life. In this sense, the Saints have become God-like, re-perfected back to the image which they were intended for at the beginning of creation.

444

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
I could make all sorts of inferences by observing similarities between any two people/cultures/religions, etc. To actually allege (as pookie did) that one borrows from the other is a critical statement that needs to be supported by credible evidence. [/quote]

Reading back in the thread, I found a few messages I’d previously missed.

I’d like to address the quoted paragraph above where stellar_horizon asked for backing by accredited theologians.

The suggestion I made was the all religions are the invention of men; and as such, you can see them evolve over time, borrowing concepts from one another. In the same way as other religions have borrowed from Christianity since its inception; Christianity too borrowed concepts from earlier religions.

First, I’m no theologian myself, so whether an idea I propose has any backing, I don’t know. I also suspect that you’d need a secular theologist to support that idea, since it basically rejects any divine inspiration for religions. No church theologian could support such and idea without being accused of heresy; and a secular theologist (if such a person exists) probably wouldn’t be accredited by any churches.

I think that that places and unrealistic burden on those questioning the faiths.

I could be wrong; I simply ask that the idea be considered on its own merits instead of simply being rejected out of hand by appealing to some “authority figure” that everyone knows we won’t get involved in this thread.

445

[quote]pookie wrote:
I’ve noticed that their are different “versions” of the Bible. Which one should one read?

I ask because when searching for certain passages on the internet, it is not uncommon to find a verse that has two or three different wordings; sometimes with subtle nuances.[/quote]

I go with the NKJV, but when you actually learn the proper interpretation of various passages, different versions will cease to be a nuisance for you.

Can I make a recommendation? The Gospel according to the three authors Matthew, Mark, & Luke was interpreted by the 11th century Archbishop of Ochrid & Bulgaria, Blessed Theophylact. His interpretation of Biblical passages echoed the interpretation of the early Church Fathers, those of his own time, and by those of the Orthodox Christian Church today. You can purchase the interpretations to the Gospel according to the three authors here:
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=EXPL050

That link is for the Gospel according to Mark. They also have the Gospel according to Matthew. The one for the Gospel according to Luke appears to be out of stock but you can run a quick google search and find it at other book stores. Here’s an online site you can view selected commentary from his three volumes without buying the books:
http://www.chrysostompress.org/explanation/index_pentecost_matthew/

I personally own all three in soft cover. With hundreds of Protestant faiths sprouting up every year, each claiming to properly interpret the Bible, I feel comforted as a Christian knowing what the right interpretation of the three Gospel authors actually is! The rest I can verify with my spiritual father or other Orthodox clergy.

Let me know if you need a good Bible study guide for interpretations of scripture according to the early Church. I have the Orthodox Study Bible:
http://conciliarpress.bizhosting.com/the_orthodox_study_bible.html
There are more expensive ones that are completely flawless, but this one should do fine.

446

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Obedience. Adam & Eve were to entrust their entire sustenance on God and on Him alone. As a little child that doesn’t realize why eating cookies before dinner will disrupt their appetite or even make them sick, a mother will hide the cookie jar or command her kids not to eat any junk food, expecting or hoping they obey. So it was with Adam & Eve. [/quote]

Children start to discern right from wrong at an early age. Eve had no knowledge of good or evil; she could not understand that “disobeying” God was wrong.

In your example, you show that a mother will hide the cookie jar from her young ones if she knows they don’t understand enough to leave it alone. Yet God, in his infinite love and wisdom allows Lucifer to roam the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and puts the forbidden Tree right in the middle of it. Not only is the cookie jar easily accessible, but the older brat sibling is there to egg them on.

Lucifer is the paragon of evil, a being malicious in the extreme. Eve, in her perfect innocence, and with no knowledge of good or evil is expected to debate him and win? How could she not have been convinced? I don’t know why, but in those tales involving God and Satan, God always comes out looking like a simpleton. But man pays for it whenever Satan scores a win…

But how could they discern the moral value of obeying vs. disobeying? Without knowledge of what is good/right vs. what is evil/wrong? God leaves them morally incomplete and then expects them to make the right moral choice.

Also, how could they be “created perfectly” in the image of God if they lacked knowledge?

The tale is full of holes.

Being born in the fallen state is also interesting. Because Eve made a wrong decision, all humanity was cursed. All her descendents for all generations are born with the the mark original sin (except Mary, if I recall correctly).

If a man committed a crime and was sentenced to jail, would we accept it as fair to also jail his family and all their descendents forever? This is exactly what God does.

447

[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t understand the reasoning of your Pentacostal friend.

If the considers his faith to be in error and he knows which faith is right, how can he not leave to join the orthodox church?

It seems to me that he does not believe at all in God or anything else he preaches.

To teach a false faith in “good faith” so to speak is one thing. But to knowingly keep teaching when you’ve been made aware of it wrongness seems to me to be an extremely unwise decision.

It’s like mocking God simply because you like your job. Or, you don’t care because you don’t really believe; in which case you can teach that God is an invisible pink unicorn and have no qualms about it.

Of course, leading a congregation in faith when you’ve got none yourself is also dishonest.
[/quote]
Well, it’s definitely not because he had no faith. The issue was whether or not the holy traditions of the early Church were critical to salvation. And although he realized they were aspects of the Christian Life the early Church practiced, he highly doubted that God would condemn him for not participating in these rituals. Some Christians are fine with taking a seemingly minimal risk as long as they live a life of good morals.

He also came from the heretical mindset of “once saved, always saved”. That once you confess that Jesus Christ is God, it doesn’t matter what you do. Once you’re in the door, you don’t need any further traditions to help you get inside [heaven]. So it’s understandable (from his outlook) that man doesn’t need holy communion or confession with a priest for salvation because he already has it. He viewed Orthodox Christians as being different but also saved. It gets difficult to tell someone who’s giving you a high five with a big smile that his salvation is not guaranteed, but I managed to do that in very polite terms. Important to note, Orthodox Christians never even make the claim that we’re saved. Salvation is a dynamic process involving constant spiritual perfecting until the hour of death.

The fact of the matter is, he was never baptized by someone with Apostolic succession, he never confessed his sins to an Orthodox Christian priest, and he never received the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Now if his teachings are likewise heretical, where is his final destination? Only God can judge, but I was there to warn him. The classic example my minister friend would point to from the Bible was the thief on the cross who Christ assured would be in heaven (who never participated in any of these mysteries). My response was: had the thief been given a chance to get down from the cross, he would’ve complied with all three.

I felt he was quite pompous in his mentality, not that he didn’t have genuine belief in Jesus Christ, but that God would show him equal compassion and forgiveness like the thief on the cross so he didn’t have to engage in any early Church traditions. Why the heck would anyone take the riskier road when it comes to the soul? This isn’t a game of blackjack. “For if a man loses his soul, what can he give in exchange for it?”

448

[quote]pookie wrote:
Being born in the fallen state is also interesting. Because Eve made a wrong decision, all humanity was cursed. All her descendents for all generations are born with the the mark original sin (except Mary, if I recall correctly).

If a man committed a crime and was sentenced to jail, would we accept it as fair to also jail his family and all their descendents forever? This is exactly what God does.[/quote]

Get out of the Western Christian mindset! Man isn’t cursed by sin. Man inherits the fallen state of sin (ie. the loss of grace of God and the spiritual ability to handle God’s uncreated energies). Slowly but surely, the Holy Spirit works in man to better equip him for union with God’s uncreated energies of love, grace, etc. When man is ready, God allows the Holy Spirit to flourish within us on a deeper level. This process is referred to as the ascension to holiness. Original sin in the Orthodox Christian Church varies dramatically from what the Franco-latins and Protestants teach. If truly interested in the matter, read this:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm

By the way, the Orthodox Christian Church does not believe that Mary was conceived without sin. That was Franco-Latin (Roman Catholic) heresy to conceal holes in their doctrine of original sin (the guilt transmittance you refer to).

Original sin is similar to a hereditary illness passed on from generation to generation rather than the stain of guilt that all man must pay because of Adam & Eve’s sin. It is a vengeful god that would punish all His followers for the sins of a man who lived thousands of years earlier - this is not the Orthodox Christian God.

449

What is uncreated energies?

Do you really see a difference in God giving mankind a hereditary disease and a God who punishes all mankind for Eve’s mistake?

450

[quote]pookie wrote:
Children start to discern right from wrong at an early age. Eve had no knowledge of good or evil; she could not understand that “disobeying” God was wrong.[/quote]
Again, I think obedience is the key here. I whistle to my cat and she runs to me, without knowing if it is good or evil for her to do so. She just obeys. Adam & Eve were expected to obey in a likewise fashion and they failed to do so. They suffered the consequences, but we are given an opportunity in this life to be raised above their spiritual status in Paradise in the pre-Fall era. I won’t get tangled up on why God didn’t stop this from happening or why God didn’t stop that from happening. It just did. The question is what are we willing to do about it…

[quote]
In your example, you show that a mother will hide the cookie jar from her young ones if she knows they don’t understand enough to leave it alone. Yet God, in his infinite love and wisdom allows Lucifer to roam the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and puts the forbidden Tree right in the middle of it. Not only is the cookie jar easily accessible, but the older brat sibling is there to egg them on.[/quote] Perhaps God was testing their obedience; a test that if Adam & Eve successfully passed, God would’ve manifested a more blissful union between Himself and them. Like a mother who counts the cookies and leaves the jar on the kitchen counter only to come back a little while later and conducts a re-count to find out if the kids were sneaky and ate some against her commands. Out of joy for their obedience, she might hand them each a cookie for listening to her.

[quote]
Lucifer is the paragon of evil, a being malicious in the extreme. Eve, in her perfect innocence, and with no knowledge of good or evil is expected to debate him and win? How could she not have been convinced? I don’t know why, but in those tales involving God and Satan, God always comes out looking like a simpleton. But man pays for it whenever Satan scores a win…
[/quote]Adam & Eve’s sustenance was completely in God. They faltered by believing that God didn’t want them to progress spiritually. They believed in the devil’s lie. A chance was taken, and the pieces fell where they did. God in His forgiveness and goodness sent to us His only begotten Son to resolve the situation when the time was right and the people could be spiritually nurtured back towards Himself. The evil one is still here, plotting for your doom and my doom and everyone’s doom. The question is, will you fight against your fallen will and come to know God or will you persist as the devil would wish for you, in atheism. I’m fighting hard not to let Satan score a win on me. I got my sights set on Jesus Christ and the heavenly kingdom. To each their own though.

Peace be with you.

451

[quote]pookie wrote:
The suggestion I made was the all religions are the invention of men; and as such, you can see them evolve over time, borrowing concepts from one another. In the same way as other religions have borrowed from Christianity since its inception; Christianity too borrowed concepts from earlier religions.

First, I’m no theologian myself, so whether an idea I propose has any backing, I don’t know. I also suspect that you’d need a secular theologist to support that idea, since it basically rejects any divine inspiration for religions. No church theologian could support such and idea without being accused of heresy; and a secular theologist (if such a person exists) probably wouldn’t be accredited by any churches.

I think that that places and unrealistic burden on those questioning the faiths.

I could be wrong; I simply ask that the idea be considered on its own merits instead of simply being rejected out of hand by appealing to some “authority figure” that everyone knows we won’t get involved in this thread.[/quote]

To use the term “borrow” carries a strong connotation. There may be similarities yes, but that doesn’t mean that any aspects of one religion were actually borrowed from another (as you alluded to in the dogma of the Holy Trinity).

On a later post I cited:

[quote][i]Just because Hindues fast and the Jews fast also, would you say that the Jews are copying the Hindues?

Just because agnostics pray and the Buddhists pray also, would you say that agnostics are copying the Buddhists?

Just because Santarians sacrifice chickens, and the Luciferians sacrifice chickens also, would you say that Santarians are copying Luciferians?

Just because the Native Americans believed in many gods and spirits, would you say they’re copying off Shintoism?[/i][/quote]

I believe there are qualities of God that people search for in their hearts which they attempt to cultivate. After all, that is where God reveals Himself to mankind - in the noetic faculty and not the mental. Recognizing this, it is more appropriate to say that in man’s quest for God, some features of God are revealed. Two people on opposite corners of the earth can have two different experiences and classify them in the same way, or they can have the same experience each and classify it in two different ways. It doesn’t necessarily mean they copied from one another. Discerning which features are true and which features are false is what makes all the difference. That is not to say that man sees another’s religion and copies principles and adopts them to his own theology - at least not in the case of Orthodox Christianity.

Also, I’m dissuaded from classifying Orthodox Christianity as a religion; it is not a religion established by men, it is a Faith revealed to mankind directly by God. If you wish to call it anything besides a Faith, call it a metaphysical science.

Thanks and peace be with you.

452

[quote]doogie wrote:
What is uncreated energies?[/quote]
copied from:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_exp1.aspx

The properties of the divine nature.
Uncreated, without beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial(7), good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless, uncircumscribed, immeasurable, unlimited, undefined, unseen, unthinkable, wanting in nothing, being His own rule and authority, all-ruling, life-giving, omnipotent, of infinite power, con-raining and maintaining the universe and making provision for all: all these and such like attributes the Deity possesses by nature, not having received them from elsewhere, but Himself imparting all good to His own creations according to the capacity of each.

The subsistences dwell and are established firmly in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion(8) And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences, which is not to be observed in any created nature.

Further the divine effulgence and energy, being one anti simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity(9). For all things long after it and have their existence in it. It gives also to all things being according to their several natures(1), and it is itself the being of existing things, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, the thought of thinking beings. But it is itself above mind and reason and life and essence.

Further the divine nature has the property of penetrating all things without mixing with them and of being itself impenetrable by anything else. Moreover, there is the property of knowing all things with a simple knowledge and of seeing all things, simply with His divine, all-surveying, immaterial eye, both the things of the present, and the things of the past, and the things of the future, before they come into being(2). It is also sinless, and can cast sin out, and bring salvation: and all that it wills, it can accomplish, but does not will all it could accomplish. For it could destroy the universe but it does not will so to do(3).

[quote]doogie wrote:
Do you really see a difference in God giving mankind a hereditary disease and a God who punishes all mankind for Eve’s mistake?[/quote]
Yes. Suppose there’s a daughter that enjoys perfect health as she was created until she goes out, fornicates, and contracts the HIV virus. All of her children and every continuing generation thereafter will continue to be plagued with the HIV virus unless they stop reproducing. Now that’s original sin; we inherit the sick, fallen state. This is the Orthodox Christian understanding of original sin of which man can actually be rescued from by abiding in the therapies of the Church and Christ’s laws & commandments.

The other scenario is that a daughter is of perfect health, goes out, fornicates, and contracts chlamydia. Every child of the sexually immoral daughter will then be injected by chlaymdia (since this is not hereditary) to make them suffer for her sin, as if they all enacted the same sin together with her. This is the Western Christian understanding of original sin (of which man is to be punished from the very beginning of their life).

In the first instance, God presents Himself as a Physician with a cure and freely provides it to those who are willing (hassle-free). In the second instance, God is a judge who slams down His gavel accusing all of us of being guilty and forcing us to pay a fine or hard time till we’ve served our full sentence. Which of the two do you believe in? The Orthodox Christian concept of original sin or the much later formulated Roman Catholic/Protestant one?

453

pookie, regarding the Orthodox Churches around the world, they aren’t too hard to find. Unless you live in a rural area, locating one shouldn’t be a problem.

Here’s a link for Russian Orthodox Christian Churches
(found in 36 states & 34 countries with multiple parishes in some areas): http://directory.sjkp.org/index.php

Don’t be alarmed by the term “Russian”. If you come across any in the future on your own accord that bear the name Orthodox Church of America or Serbian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, that’s right on the money too.

This is a site for parishes of the Orthodox Church of America:
http://www.oca.org/DIRlists.parish.asp?SID=9

Peace be with you.

454

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
pookie wrote:
You say you spent 8 years researching the history of the early church and found your faith. How can you be sure that you’ve found the right one? You didn’t spend as many years exploring all the other options, so isn’t your conclusion in haste?
I started out by reading the Bible on my own at the counsel of a friend. Then I started researching Protestant groups. Then I researched early Church history and came to worship as an Orthodox Christian. My conclusion was not in haste, as I firmly believe in the Lord & Savior Jesus Christ and all the things He spoke, the miracles He conceived, and the way He lived His life. Having complete faith in Him, I submit to the authority of His Church, the same Church which He established in 33 AD.

Some theologians have spent a much greater part of theirs lives studying many more faiths. If your path was somehow “special” or more “right”, shouldn’t we expect to have a higher amount of Orthodox theologians that of other faiths? It is not logical that someone would find the true church of God and choose to remain in his original false faith… Since theologians from every faith exist and stay in their respective faith, again I see nothing unreasonable in assuming that no faith is particularly special.

If someone believes in Allah, then they’ll study Islam more aggressively than Christianity. If someone believes in Jesus Christ, they’ll study more Christianity than Hinduism, etc. That’s a given.

The rules/regulations/guidelines of Christianity are the toughest ones to abide by. So for people who welcome a life of persecution, suffering, and internal battles, Orthodox Christianity is for them. Most people shy away from these challenges and want to go about life as they please, blaming every other creature in the world for the dismal state of creation. Christianity teaches that change begins with the individual on the deepest of microcosmic levels.

The Orthodox Christian St. Seraphim of Sarov says:
 “Save your soul and you save a thousand souls around you”.

Regarding theologians, it’s not the quantity of them throughout the world, but the quality. In Orthodox Christianity, one who is considered a true theologian is not one who’s studied the rudiments and principles of God, but one’s who’s truly living and applying them. If you need examples of Orthodox Christian theologians, take a brief look on my thread marked Orthodox Christian Saints. The world has known thousands of Orthodox Christian theologians since 33 AD.

On a related note, academically-speaking, Orthodox Christian theologians are not as common in America as they are in other lands, chiefly because of funding issues and the dominant religions here being of chiefly western roots. The English who colonized America were of Protesant roots (ie. Quakers, Puritans). Most universities in America don’t even have Orthodox Christian Studies departments. Good luck getting a degree in America on this Faith!

Roman Catholics go through years of parochial schools and confess they’ve never been taught about the Orthodox Christian Faith. Why? Are they afraid of losing their faithful? Most Protestants have no clue of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian or our dogmas or doctrines. Why? Over the computer alone, many have pm’ed me to give details on the Faith confessing they’ve never heard about it. Perhaps we should run commercials like the Latter Day Saints and hand out pamphlets on the trains & buses like the Baptists. Funny how the new Pope of Rome gets so much air time but the Patriarchs of Orthodox Christianity throughout the world get zero coverage. Nice of our media to do that ain’t it?

Anyways, if you go to Europe and the Middle East as well as some other regions where Christianity originated, you’ll discover that the notion of a Roman Catholic or Protestant theologian is a paradox.

Peace be with you.[/quote]
The statement about finding a school which teaches Orthodoxy in the US is true. I’ve gone around looking and haven’t found any, at least not on the net…I’ll continue. It’s actually because of this reason that my curiosity is tweaked. Why is this religion which is so close to RCC not as prevalent here? Conspiracy theorist of the world unite…it’s got me curious anyway.

455

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
As it is, you need churches and clergy and a whole bureaucratic apparatus just to try and preserve whatever version of God you imagine is the right one; as do all other religions.

Does that even resemble the simple form of worship Jesus was trying to teach people? A lot of meaningless tradition and pomp. Many of the original Christians who had converted from Judaism had to be counselled about the necessity to leave completely behind the Jewish form of worship with all its grandeur because they really liked the ornateness(even a word?) of the Jewish way rather than the simple and humble worship of the Christians.
Fishlips, how in the world do you make any such claims? Once again I urge you to research the early Christian Church and contrast it with whatever religious affiliation you belong to.
[/quote]
First Stella, you have quoted my words along with pookie’s I believe. Mine is the second portion. Think more, post less.

[quote]
You initially started on page 7 or so of this thread by arguing that everything that needs to be known is apparent in the Bible. Then you draw conclusions contrary the necessity of the Eucharist, the dogma of the Holy Trinity, and on Apostolic succession by providing logical ways of justifying your stance but without any Biblical proof.[/quote]

No, I have provided plenty of biblical proof but you have either not commented on it and moved on to the next point or have somehow seen it as irrelevant.[quote]

Listen, you do a nice job of presenting reasonable excuses for why this should not be and why that should not be, but the bottom line is that your arguments go contrary to what the early Church taught and practiced. What’s more, your stance on these issues can’t even be supported by scriptural evidence which you ardently claim is the basis of your entire faith.[/quote]

Again, each time I have included scriptural evidence you have made no comment on it then later make comments like this. ‘Early church’ is nebulous as far as time is concerned. Before the apostles were even gone the falling from truth was being predicted and observed within the early church as is evident in Paul’s words, ‘I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.’ Acts 20:29,30 and the apostle John wrote: “Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of our sort.” 1 John 2:17-19
So by the time 325 and the council of Nicea had rolled around, the ‘early church’ was full of ‘twisted things’.[quote]

Nowhere in the Bible is Apostolic succession clearly expressed, so you draw the conclusion that it must be a myth. Be careful though, because nowhere in the Bible was the concept of Apostolic succession ever denounced.[/quote]

If that’s what you want to base virtually an entire faith on then the Bible doesn’t denounce the eating of Krispy Kreme donuts. Therefore I’m gonna make that a basic necessity for the ‘true church’. All must eat Krispy Kreme’s or you belong to a false church.
The Bible doesn’t need to go around ‘pre-emptively’ denouncing all potential ideas people would eventually come up with as important.[quote]

How do I know that Apostolic succession is a genuine dogma?

(1) The Apostles themselves urged all Christians to stand fast in all traditions of the Church, whether by their word or by their epistle.[/quote]

You’ve quoted this scripture, and it seems only this one scripture to support your whole idea of the importance of extra info known by the apostolic successors. Where do you obtain the idea that this scripture is saying or implying that their ‘word’ was any different than their epistles? By your own admission, the epistle were sometimes written because the apostle could not physically be present so why would their writings be any different than what they wanted to say in person?[quote]

To this day, the Orthodox Christian Church, which theologians acknowledge as the original Church of Jesus Christ, continues to ordain the clergy according to this tradition. There was never a time when Apostolic succession suddenly just sprung into practice in the Orthodox Christian Church. It was there from the very beginning.

(2) Early Church manuscripts dating back to 96 AD clearly express that Apostolic succession was a tradition which the early Church followed and taught.

The concepts of the Holy Trinity as well as the Eucharist have also been established in a likewise fashion. If these dogmas are fallible (as you assert), than why on earth did the Apostles and their successors continue to practice and teach them to the faithful? You call these traditions meaningless in direct opposition to the plea of the Apostles and the early Church, and that’s ok. You have the right to deviate from Apostolic teachings and practices, but don’t claim that you belong to the true Church.[/quote]

They didn’t teach them.

[quote]
And before you judge how ridiculous it was for Jews to follow a “bureaucratic apparatus”, reflect upon how a hierarchy existed in Judaism in the Old Testament (ie. the high priest). The Apostles were no different. They became the bishops who elevated presbyters in the Church to cater to the needs of the faithful. To call the holy traditions of the Jews meaningless as well as those which the Apostles passed on to the faithful is inexcusable.[/quote]

Those were pookie’s words.

456

I will further debate some of the response that have been given since last night, but I don’t have enough time this morning.

I was wondering which teachings,traditions and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church does the Orthodox faith reject? Since the RCC is the church with which I am most familiar (a few generations ago, its influence in Quebec was nearly absolute.)

457

[quote]pookie wrote:
I was wondering which teachings,traditions and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church does the Orthodox faith reject? Since the RCC is the church with which I am most familiar (a few generations ago, its influence in Quebec was nearly absolute.)[/quote]

From page 4 of this thread:

Here’s a list of heresies/innovations which the Roman Catholic Church implemented throughout the ages:
1-filioque
2-papal infallibility
3-purgatory
4-altering the azymes of the Eucharist (from leavened bread to unleavened bread, ie. crackers/wafers)
*their Eucharist has further been adjusted to a Bloodless Host
5-altering the sacrament of baptism (from a full triple immersion to sprinkling on the forehead)
6-altering the sacrament of chrismation (from the seal being set directly after baptism to the separate ritual of confirmation)
7-progressive revelations (belief the church learns more and more about God as time goes on)
8-the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary (the belief the Virgin Mary lacked any human will)
9-dogma on original sin (guilt transmittance)
10-indulgences & certificates
11-heaven/hell as creations of God
12-concept of Actus Purus
13-altering the Paschalion in direct conflict with the First Ecumenical Council so that it no longer corresponds with the Jewish Passover
14-concept of Divine Justice (ie. to appease the devil for all the sins of humanity, God had to pay a ransom to His own creation, the evil one, so that humanity could gain access to heaven)
15-ability for Saints to lose their sanctity AFTER death (ie. St. Christopher who was canonized but later demoted)

Adding to or subtracting from the Faith which Jesus Christ and the early Church pronounced is heretical and dangerous. If you’re truly interested in the matter, I encourage you to conduct further research on early Church traditions, teachings, and practices.

Peace be with you.

458

[quote]Cream wrote:
On a related note, capitalization, grammar, and upper body workouts are important.

This just in, hot off the press! “Laters” is not a word![/quote]

blame my ivy league education and my “like i give a sh*t” attitude. i must admit that i am weak since i have not hit that 2x bw no gear bench press. Maybe next year. we can talk about how much i suck on another thread. laters pk

459

Dear All,

This weekend the Cathedral i attend will be featured on the PBS program, “Religion & Ethics.” To find out exactly when the program can be seen in your part of the nation go to the website below and type in your own zip code.

laters pk

460

Fishlips, your response was quite the fabrication. How long will you persist in this delusion? I have no personal vendetta with you, but you refuse to believe what’s right there in front of you. Everything I’ve written is backed up by clear evidence, contrary to your posts which are riddled with long commentaries that have no decisive scriptural support; scriptures that you desperately twist according to your own private interpretation which is outside the framework of the Church in which the Bible was written. Remember, I don’t need the Bible to back up every dogma on the Orthodox Christian Church; it’s not the entire expression of my Faith. It was you who argued that every dogma that needs to be known is clearly outlined in the Bible.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
To this day, the Orthodox Christian Church, which theologians acknowledge as the original Church of Jesus Christ, continues to ordain the clergy according to this tradition. There was never a time when Apostolic succession suddenly just sprung into practice in the Orthodox Christian Church. It was there from the very beginning.
(2) Early Church manuscripts dating back to 96 AD clearly express that Apostolic succession was a tradition which the early Church followed and taught.

The concepts of the Holy Trinity as well as the Eucharist have also been established in a likewise fashion. If these dogmas are fallible (as you assert), than why on earth did the Apostles and their successors continue to practice and teach them to the faithful? You call these traditions meaningless in direct opposition to the plea of the Apostles and the early Church, and that’s ok. You have the right to deviate from Apostolic teachings and practices, but don’t claim that you belong to the true Church.

Fishlips wrote:
They didn’t teach them.[/quote]

St. Clement Of Rome (The Epistle Of Clement To The Corinthians, c. 96 AD)
“Through Our Lord Jesus Christ our Apostles knew that there would be strife over the office of episcopacy. Accordingly, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those men already mentioned. And they afterwards gave instructions that when those men would fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. Therefore, we are of the opinion that those appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards by other acclaimed men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.”

St. Irenaeus (Against All Heresies, c. 180 AD)
“When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles.”

“Therefore, it is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the truth to examine clearly the tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the Apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times… For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries…they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men.”

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

"It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. For those presbyters, together with the succession of the bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But we should hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever. For they are either heretics or perverse minds, or else they are schismatics who are puffed up and self-pleasing… Therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof from all such persons and to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, hold the doctrine of the Apostles."

St. Hippolytus (Refutation Of All Heresies, c. 225 AD)
“No one will refute these heretics except the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which the Apostles - having received in the first instance - have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors and as participators in this grace, high priesthood, and office of teaching - as well as being reputed guardians of the Church - must not be found deficient in vigilance.”

St. Cyprian Of Carthage (Letter To Magnus, c. 250 AD)
"He cannot be reckoned as a bishop who succeeds no one. For he has despised the evangelical and apostolic traditions, springing from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way… How can he be esteemed a pastor, who succeeds to no one, but begins from himself? For the true shepherd remains and presides over the Church of God by successive ordination. Therefore, the other one becomes a stranger and a profane person, an enemy of the Lord’s peace."

Seventh Council Of Carthage (c. 256 AD)
“The words of our Lord Jesus Christ are plain that He sent His Apostles and gave to them alone the power that had been given to Him by His Father. And we have succeeded to them, governing the Lord’s Church with the same power.”

461

Fishlips, without any added commentary, please post the scriptural evidence which supports your stance that the Eucharist is not the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.