[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips, just one question: do your eyes literally burn if you so much as look at a prayer from an Orthodox service because you have never responded-in at least 7-8 different opportunities, to any of these writings. I don’t know, I just get the feeling that you refuse or are somehow unable to read them?
Fishlips isn’t here to honestly debate. His purpose was to spew insults and lies. He’s claimed everything under the sun such as:
b[/b] that the genealogical records of Apostolic lineage were destroyed c. 70 AD (which we placed the burden of proof on him to substantiate which he failed to do),
Answered already. The archives in the temple were destroyed in 70. This is why no Jews today make any claims to lineage of any kind to that era, because they can’t. The records were only useful for the Jewish religious system to ascertain tribal designations and ultimately the Messiah. To the Christians, they were of the mindset even before 70 of 1 Tim 1:4 where Paul instructed “nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.” Sounds like how your church wastes time Stella - researching geneological lines of succession which end up in nothing.
Sorry, no offense, but this is either complete B.S. or ignorange on your part. You are right about the geneological records, but Apostolic succession has nothing to do with geneology and by 70 A.D. the Christians had disassociated themselves from the Jews in Jerusalem. There are clear writings of Ignatious from the late first century where he makes reference to the Apostle John who ordained him, and similar writings from Polycarp from mid second century stating that Ignatious whom John the Apostle had ordained, ordained him. From Polycarp, there are clear HISTORICAL records, bishop for bishop to the Orthodox bishops of today. [/quote]
You are correct mert. I had confused the two matters of geneology and succession. However, interestingly all that you wish to do is replace one geneology with another(just not blood lines.) Why would Paul condemn bothering with geneologies, because of the worthless research required, and then have the Christians start their own version, with a bunch more research eventually needed?[quote]
This is similarly true from James in Jerusalem. Historians don’t typically even debate these lines any more. I mean, I have read non-orthodox history books that state that the line of Apostolic succession in Jerusalem is unquestioned although they doubt for example whether Mark founded the Orthodox church in Alexandria or whether Phillip, or possibly Andrew went to Byzantium (city), Paul went to Spain or England, Thomas went to India or Andrew to the Romanian frontier. There is a distinct difference between geneological succession and Apostolic succession and I think you are smart enough to know the difference. That’s why I say its probably B.S. on your part.
b[/b] that the Church never practiced Apostolic succession (which we proved was a lie),
See above.
See above.[/quote]
I already showed in my previous post biblical evidence for how the ‘church’ was already corrupting and with the departure of the remaining apostle the way was left wide open for complete apostasy.[quote]
b[/b] that the Eucharist was never understood by the early Church to be the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (which we proved was a lie),
Also dealt with ages ago.
b[/b] that the early Church never taught the dogma of the Holy Trinity (which we proved was a lie),
Many of the early apostate church(after the death of the apostles) did but none of the writers of the bible, it didn’t even enter their minds.
Again, would you find a scholarly source which disputes the authenticity of the early church services from the time of the Apostles. I am SURE you can find one because someone out there, surely would at least propose them as forgeries but they clearly embrace the Trinity and Orthodox concept of the Eucharist. [/quote]
Before your mention of it I had never even heard of the liturgy of James. Outside of Catholic sources it isn’t even acknowledged. It’s quite intriguing how explicitly it speaks of the Trinity et al. being claimed that it was written before any of the books of the New Testament yet NOT ONCE is that word ‘Trinity’ used EVER in any New Testament writings after that, THEN it starts being mentioned again after the apostles are all gone, hmmmmm. If that doesn’t raise any red flags with you it makes me wonder just how gullible you might actually be.
I managed to find a source talking about this liturgy you mention. Makes some profound statements such as: “That it was actually composed by St. James the Less, as first Bishop of Jerusalem, is not now believed by any one.” and this one: “There is no external evidence that the Apostolic Constitution rite was ever used anywhere; it is only from the work itself that we deduce that it is Syrian and Antiochene. Under its new name of Liturgy of Antioch, St. James’s Rite was used throughout Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor.” www.newadvent.org/cathen/08371a.htm[quote]
and
b[/b] that the early Church fell away (contrary to the Bible which promises that It would never fall away).
Really? Paul instructed the Thessalonians: "Let no one seduce YOU in any manner, because it(the Lord’s day) will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called “god” or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god.
Sounds like the Pope of Rome to me, who’s CHOSEN title translated into Greek is anti-christos=he stands in the place of Christ.[/quote]
Pontifex Maximus was a pagan term the Roman Emperors abandoned meaning “Greatest Priest”.[quote]
Or the Roman Emperor. Did you know that latin texts of Revelation from the first century use the number 636 rather than 666 because the numerological name of Nero in the Latin alphabet is 636, and that it’s been determined that that is the only numerological name that comes out to be 666 in Greek and 636 in Latin?[/quote]
Why are you talking about Nero and 666 etc.? The scripture mentions ‘THE apostasy’. That’s substantial. Not just an apostate. It then connects it with this ‘man of lawlessness’. So this ‘man of lawlessness’ is part of the apostasy, meaning that what is represented by that ‘man’ used to be considered Christian. And Paul speaks of the apostasy and ‘man’ being before the Lord’s day. That’s centuries so not one person can be that ‘man’. So what group has proven themselves apostates from the time after the apostles? Paul warned the elders or overseers of the congregation in Ephesus about ‘men rising from among them and speaking twisted things’. So the leaders of the congregations would prove to be the ‘oppressive wolves’ mentioned in Acts who would ‘draw away disciples for themselves’ and who would eventually organize themselves into a clergy and over the centuries divide into numerous religious factions.[quote]
Do YOU not remember that, while I was yet with YOU, I used to tell YOU these things? ?And so now YOU know the thing that acts as a restraint, with a view to his being revealed in his own due time. True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed."
The apostles were that restraint to the development of the apostasy but they saw it coming as evidenced in John’s words: “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.” John was to die approx. 2 years later.
It was the ‘last hour’ of the apostolic period and antichrists were flourishing. From this the early church developed along with all it’s adoption of pagan ideas.
Then he wants to say that we lack reason because we convey the same interpretation of the Bible as it’s author (the Orthodox Christian Church). So much for his reliance on personal reason and common sense; see where it leads him? In addition, he forms his own private interpretation of scripture (which the Bible [i]condemns[/i]).
He also fails to abide within both the oral and written traditions of the Church (which the Bible [i]commands[/i]) and last but not least, irreverently says God is “schizophrenic” when he can’t explain particular scriptures in the Bible that are in complete disaccord with his belief system.
I’m not irreverent. The God you talk about must be schizophrenic as he apparently talks to himself all the time and has multiple personalities within him. But that God doesn’t exist.
Then he skips most of our strongpoints and goes off on tangents. I congratulated him on being a master of the strawman tactic long ago, but perhaps he mistook this as a compliment? Anyways, the reason he fails to respond to the early Church prayers & manuscripts we’ve provided him with is that there’s nothing left for him to say but, “My apologies Lord, I was wrong all this time!” Oh well, so much for his empty promises to address our posts when he “returns from out of town”.
I don’t think going out of town is any impediment to his internet access as he clearly takes the opportunity to steer the discussion away from questions he refuses to concede to.
I dealt with anything that was worth dealing with. Then you come back with completely made up fantasies about scriptures being removed, then added back in, then removed again, and I saw you haven’t replied intelligently to any of my posts and basically gave up on you.
You see it really doesn’t matter when I decide our communication is useless and leave, you’ll just jump up and down with your hands in the air screaming ‘I win, I win’ no matter what the current item of debate is.
Oh yeah, you haven’t had any ‘strong’ points.
The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Let us follow the example of Saint Maximus the Confessor and leave stubborn heretics to wallow in their confusion and disbelief.
Peace be with you, brother in the Faith!
You just keep running in your little circle of mysteries.
I would like to thank you Fishlips, sincerely and to apologize if I offended you with anything but the truth at any time. I have learned a lot from you.
Basically correct me if I’m wrong, but your basic theory is that around the time that John was coming to the end of his life, what you would call a trinitarian heresy took hold of most of the Church and within a century the Trinitarians were in control of what we now know as the Orthodox Church?[/quote]
John was recognizing many erroneus teachings and lifestyles creeping into the Christian congregations. It had started decades earlier though and by John’s day was taking a stranglehold. Exactly at what point the seeds of the Trinity infiltrated is unclear but really that’s just one of many pagan ideas that existed long before Jesus’ day such as an immortal soul, a place of punishment in the afterlife etc. which infects virtually all the so-called ‘Christian’ religions today.[quote]
It’s interesting, although as an outsider, wouldn’t you agree that that second century church is consistent with the Orthodox Church today-I mean only, historically and theologically as someone who as studied the issue “objectively” or at least from an outside vantage point, which Church seems to bear more consistency in FORM and STRUCURE to this as you believe heretical trinitarian church-the Orthodox or Romans? Or another group perhaps. Please choose freely here, I am just curious about your true opinion.[/quote]
They all have serious faults however the Roman Catholic Church is simply the easiest target especially because of the role of the Pope. Look at the ridiculous spectacle the death of John Paul was and the electing of his successor. Not a scrap of all that resembles anything to do with Christianity.[quote]
Also, you and I agree on the existence of the Father, Son and Spirit, but disagree on their “definition” and relationship to each other, what we mean by person, and what we mean by the word “divine”[/quote]
We probably agree on absolutely nothing in this regard. Of course they exist but 1. The Father is the only true God 2. Jesus Christ was created by the Father as the Word and is actually His Son whom the Father then empowered to create all other things 3. The Holy Spirit is not a person at all. It is the force that God uses to accomplish his will, akin to electricity, it makes things happen but takes on no attributes of that which it empowers. It was use of this spirit which empowered Jesus to create.[quote]
I admit that the Orthodox Church fine tuned and edited the bible for 2 hundred years of so and YES to the purpose that the Church wanted, in some cases to reinforce the doctrine of the trinity-because the new testament was the scriptural instruction for converts to learn the dogmas of the church. [/quote]
This is one heckuva doozie statement. You just admitted to your church playing with the bible to their own ends. That’s game over. If they did that, nothing they say can be trusted. Teachings of the bible don’t need to be ‘reinforced’ by men. Teachings that aren’t there do.
And with those alterations that means the Council of Nicea was based on altered scripture not true scripture. And look what teaching most predominantly came from that Council.[quote]
I will ask one last question. If a small group who had lived their life as Pagans on a deserted island found a bible(with your text and translation) and read it, could they just start up
their own valid legitimate church that very day and have the fullness of the faith?[/quote]
This is a subject I’m just not gonna get started on. It will be too long.[quote]
Finally, we call Jesus the second Adam because he took destroyed the curse of Adams sin which is death. He was the first human born from the dead, as Adam had been the first human born into creation. That’s why he had to become human.[/quote]
The statement “That’s why he had to become human” isn’t really explained by what you’ve written here.
Simply put Adam and Jesus were the only two perfect men to ever walk the earth. Justice required that what Adam lost, perfect human life, be paid back so all humans could have that prospect once again. Jesus fulfilled that by sacrificing his perfect FULLY human life, as that was what Adam was. You would have a very lopsided scale of justice if on one side you had Adam and, on the other, God. It was still an immeasurable sacrifice on God’s part to send his only-begotten son to die. It shows God will stick to his standards, this one being justice, even at great cost to himself. Jesus was also answering Satan’s challenge made regarding Job, that humans would not remain faithful if fully put to the test. Jesus was fully put to the test and his obedience proved Satan a liar and showed it was possible to remain faithful. Now how could Satan possibly tempt Jesus to disobey himself(if Jesus was God)? How could he tempt God to do an act of worship to him?
Also you make mention of Col. 1:18 which refers to Jesus being the firtborn from the dead. But others had been resurrected before Jesus. So in what way does this apply? He was the first human to be resurrected to life in heaven. Then 3 verses earlier in vs. 15 he is called the ‘firstborn’ of all creation. The same word used 3 vss. apart. You’ve admitted in vs. 18 it means the first from the dead, you must admit then this means the first one created would it not?
