Only One Truth

Second Ecumenical Council

The Second Ecumenical Council was convened in the year 381 and consolidated the victory of Orthodoxy attained in the year 325 at the First Ecumenical Council.

During the difficult years which passed after the acceptance of the Nicene Symbol of Faith (Creed), the Arian heresy developed new offshoots. Under the guise of struggle against the Sabellian heresy, which taught about a blending of the Hypostatic Persons of the Father and the Son [as mere aspects or modalities within the Trinity], Macedonius began to employ the word “homoiousios” “of similar essence” [in contrast to the Orthodox teaching of “homoousios”, “of the same essence”] regarding the essence of the Son and that of the Father.

This formula still presented a danger because Macedonius presented himself as a struggler against the Arians, who used the term “like the Father.” Besides this, the Macedonians, being semi-Arians, depending on conditions and advantages of the moment, sometimes inclined towards Orthodoxy, sometimes towards Arianism. They blasphemed the Holy Spirit by suggesting that He was not “of the same essence” with the Father and the Son.

A second heretic, Aetius, introduced the concept “anomoion” (“different in essence.” He said that the Father has a completely different essence from that of the Son. His disciple Eunomios taught a hierarchical subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Holy Spirit to the Son. Everyone who came to him was rebaptized into the “death of Christ,” denying Baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which is commanded us by the Savior Himself (Mt. 28:19).

A third heresy arose from the teachings of Valentius and Ursacius at the Arimonian Council. They attempted to deceive the Orthodox bishops, proclaiming that the Son of God is from God, and is in the likeness of God the Father, and is not a created being as the Arians taught. The heretics did not wish to use the term “one in essence” in describing the relation of the Son to the Father, saying that the word “essence” is not found within the Holy Scripture. Besides these three main heresies, there were also many other false teachings. The heretic Apollinarios said, “The flesh of the Savior did not have a human soul or reason. The Word of God took the place of the absent soul; and Divinity remained dead for three days.”

For dealing with these crafters of heresy, the holy Emperor Theodosius the Great (379-395) convened an Ecumenical Council at Constantinople, at which 150 bishops were present. Upon investigation by the holy Fathers it was proposed to affirm a Confession of Faith from a Roman Council, which holy Pope Damasus had sent to Bishop Paulinos of Antioch. After reading the document aloud, the holy Fathers rejected the false teaching of Macedonius, and unanimously affirmed the Apostolic teaching that the Holy Spirit is not a subordinate being, but is rather the Life-Creating Lord, Who proceeds from the Father, and is worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. In order to combat other heresies, of the Eunomians, Arians and Semi-Arians, the holy Fathers affirmed the Nicene Symbol of the Orthodox Faith.

In the Symbol (Creed), accepted by the First Ecumenical Council, the divine nature of the Holy Spirit was not addressed, since at that earlier time [in 325] heresies against the Holy Spirit had not become widespread. Therefore, the holy Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council added to the Nicean Symbol its eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth sections. They definitively formulated and affirmed the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol of Faith, which is used even now by all the Orthodox Churches.

The Second Ecumenical Council also established the norms for ecclesiastical courts [Canon VI], and it decided to receive those repentant heretics who were properly baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity through Chrismation, but those baptized with a single immersion were to be received as pagans.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
No offense, but keep your reason and faithlessness if that’s what you believe is right, but do refrain from posting off-topic jibberish when addressing me. In case you didn’t notice, I’ve been posting since page 1 of this thread.[/quote]

After 36 pages so far, do you feel you’ve changed anyone’s mind about anything?

I’ve read a good part of this thread and as far as I can tell, no one has budged an inch, or conceded the slightest point on any topic.

As for as refraining from posting anything I want to is concerned: piss off.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
What I’m asking is, isn’t the Church I belong to (commonly called the Orthodox Church) what YOU consider to be this paganized apostasy ie trinitarianism, hell, eucharistic presence? I’m just trying to get at your historical hypothesis here, that near the end of the lives of the Apostles, certain “pagan heresies” arose? And at least certainly by the Emperial/Council of Nicea times it could have been identified by its teachings and practices as the church commonly called the Orthodox Church?
Fishlips wrote:
Yes the Orthodox church embraces the steady deviations in Christian faith from the time of the apostles till it became more organized in the 4th century with the councils. Remember, though, this was starting well before the end of the apostles lives for warnings about philosophy and deceptive teachings were made some 40 years before John’s death. It was some time after the apostolic period where Christian dogmas were considered orthodox or heretical.

stellar_horizon writes:
Wrong Fislips. You keep posting inaccurate statements. Check Revelations which was written by Saint John the Evangelist. Therein, a sect of Christians who professed that sexual immorality was acceptable are condemned. That’s a heresy within the Christian community that is indicated in the Bible pre-97 AD. Clearly, apostasy was something the Orthodox Christian Church experienced in its earliest of eras. The precise dogma of the Holy Trinity, although not preserved via written record from the period of the first century (and let’s note the possibility that it may have been written but was destroyed or lost such like Saint Paul’s Corinthians III), is clearly identified in the 2nd century by the Church and expressed in the liturgical service of Saint James the Apostle. If the fact that One God is worshipped in Three persons doesn’t bring you to the reasonable conclusion that the early Christian community affirmed faith in the Holy Trinity, then you’re obviously shutting your eyes to the Truth.[/quote]

Ahhh Stella, you glutton for punishment you’ve come back for more! Right then, sit down, school is in session.

Above is an interesting moment of blindness for you. In the very words of mine you quoted I said how deceptive teachings were creeping into the Christian congregations well before John’s writings but you kindly pointed out again what I already said as if I didn’t say it. In your rush to try and sound like you still have a point you must have missed that. BTW - I was simply referring to use of the terms ‘orthodox’ or ‘heretical’, as they’re no where to be found in the bible.

And you mention the ‘precise’ dogma of the Trinity not being written. So the most fundamental aspect of Christianity was not written eh? And I bet you kept a straight face as you said that. You imply much: 1)Jesus and his apostles had to be helped by having their expressions as recorded in the bible ‘supplemented’ 2)you ignore CLEAR expressions against trinitarian views by the early writers I quoted in my previous post.

You’re developing a nasty habit of conveniently ignoring points in my posts that decimate your personal views. And I should have known that whenever you get cornered more miraculous ‘lost’ writings appear that substantiate your claims or could if only we could find the darn things.

Check out this interesting quote from Louis Ellies Dupin, Roman Catholic church historian:

“The Catholics invented false histories, false miracles, and false lives of the saints to nourish and keep up the piety of the faithful.”

Coincides with the admission of mert that your church edited the bible to its own liking, why not keep going and do it to everything? I’m going to post history, un-edited by the church, of Constantine so others will see who he truly was and the real reason the council was put together.

And regarding that liturgy of James I commented on the evidence why it was certainly not written by him in an earlier post, here’s another quote from Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, who once wrote Laeta, a lady acquaintance, in regard to the education of her daughter: “All apocrypha books should be avoided;…they are not the works of authors by whose names they are distinguished, [for] they contain much that is faulty, and…it is a task requiring great prudence to find gold in the midst of clay.” Though not claimed to be part of the Apocrypha, this liturgy bears all the hallmarks of this same kind of forgery which was common as writers tried to add support for unscriptural and fanciful ideas.

Worthless.[quote]

As an Orthodox Christian, I certainly do not. They were classified as heretical by the Orthodox Christian Church (est. 33 AD). Why do I believe in the authority of the Orthodox Christian Church? Because She was established directly by Jesus Christ via the Twelve Apostles and their successors and has/does/will always remain empowered by the Holy Spirit in the fullness of Truth unto the end of the ages…[/quote]

I’ll be expecting you to go back a few posts of mine and address my points. Any avoidance will be answer enough.

Constantine the Great? A Champion of Christianity?

Roman Emperor Constantine is among the few men whose name history has embellished with the term “Great.” Christendom has added the expressions “saint,” “thirteenth apostle,” “holy equal of the apostles,” and 'chosen by God’s Providence to accomplish the greatest turnabout ‘in the whole world.’ At the other end of the spectrum, some describe Constantine as “bloodstained, stigmatized by countless enormities and full of deceit,…a hideous tyrant, guilty of horrid crimes.”

MANY professing Christians have been taught that Constantine the Great was one of Christianity’s most prominent benefactors. They credit him with delivering Christians from the misery of Roman persecution and giving them religious freedom. Moreover, it is widely held that he was a faithful footstep follower of Jesus Christ with a strong desire to advance the Christian cause. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church have declared both Constantine and his mother, Helena, “saints.” Their festival is celebrated on June 3 or according to the church calendar, on May 21.

Who really was Constantine the Great? What was his role in the development of postapostolic Christianity? It is very enlightening to let history and scholars answer these questions.

The Historical Constantine

Constantine, the son of Constantius Chlorus, was born in Naissus in Serbia about the year 275 C.E. When his father became emperor of Rome’s western provinces in 293 C.E., he was fighting on the Danube under orders from Emperor Galerius. Constantine returned to his dying father’s side in Britain in the year 306 C.E. Soon after his father’s death, Constantine was raised to the status of an emperor by the army.

At that time, five other individuals claimed that they were Augusti. The period between 306 and 324 C.E., after which Constantine became sole imperator, was a time of unremitting civil war. Victory in two sets of campaigns guaranteed Constantine a place in Roman history and made him the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.

In 312 C.E., Constantine defeated his opponent Maxentius in the battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Rome. Christian apologists claimed that during that campaign, there appeared under the sun a flaming cross bearing the Latin words In hoc signo vinces, meaning “In this sign conquer.” It is also held that in a dream, Constantine was told to paint the first two letters of Christ’s name in Greek on the shields of his troops. However, this story suffers from many anachronisms. The book A History of Christianity states: “There is a conflict of evidence about the exact time, place and details of this vision.” Welcoming Constantine in Rome, a pagan Senate declared him chief Augustus and Pontifex Maximus, that is, high priest of the pagan religion of the empire.

In 313 C.E., Constantine arranged a partnership with Emperor Licinius, ruler of the eastern provinces. By means of the Edict of Milan, together they granted freedom of worship and equal rights to all religious groups. Many historians, however, downplay the significance of this document, saying that it was just a routine official letter and not a major imperial document signaling a change of policy toward Christianity.

Within the next ten years, Constantine defeated his last remaining rival, Licinius, and became the undisputed ruler of the Roman world. In 325 C.E., as yet unbaptized, he presided over the first great ecumenical council of the “Christian” church, which condemned Arianism and drew up a statement of essential beliefs called the Nicene Creed.

Constantine fell terminally ill in the year 337 C.E. At that late hour of his life, he was baptized, and then he died. After his death the Senate placed him among the Roman gods.

Religion in Constantine’s Strategy

With reference to the general attitude that Roman emperors of the third and fourth centuries had toward religion, the book Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) says: “Even when those who occupied the imperial throne did not have such profoundly religious dispositions, surrendering to the mood of the era, they found it necessary to give religion precedence within the framework of their political schemes, to lend at least a religious flavor to their actions.”

Certainly, Constantine was a man of his era. At the beginning of his career, he needed some “divine” patronage, and this could not be provided by the fading Roman gods. The empire, including its religion and other institutions, was in decline, and something new and invigorating was needed to reconsolidate it. The encyclopedia Hidria says: “Constantine was especially interested in Christianity because it backed up not only his victory but also the reorganization of his empire. The Christian churches that existed everywhere became his political support…He surrounded himself with the great prelates of the times…, and he requested that they keep their unity intact.”

Constantine sensed that the “Christian” religion albeit apostate and deeply corrupted by then could be effectively utilized as a revitalizing and uniting force to serve his grand scheme for imperial domination. Adopting the foundations of apostate Christianity to gain support in furthering his own political ends, he decided to unify the people under one “catholic,” or universal, religion. Pagan customs and celebrations were given “Christian” names. And “Christian” clergymen were given the status, salary, and influential clout of pagan priests.

Seeking religious harmony for political reasons, Constantine quickly crushed any dissenting voices, not on the grounds of doctrinal truth, but on the basis of majority acceptance. The profound dogmatic differences within the badly divided “Christian” church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a “God-sent” mediator. Through his dealings with the Donatists in North Africa and the followers of Arius in the eastern portion of the empire, he quickly discovered that persuasion was not enough to forge a solid, unified faith. It was in an attempt to resolve the Arian controversy that he convened the first ecumenical council in the history of the church.(See “Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.”)

Concerning Constantine, historian Paul Johnson states: “One of his main reasons for tolerating Christianity may have been that it gave himself and the State the opportunity to control the Church’s policy on orthodoxy and the treatment of heterodoxy.”

Did He Ever Become a Christian?

Johnson notes: “Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins.” The Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “Constantine showed equal favour to both religions. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights.” “Constantine never became a Christian,” states the encyclopedia Hidria, adding: “Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his biography, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. This doesn’t hold water, as the day before, [Constantine] had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.”

Down to the day of his death in 337 C.E., Constantine bore the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, the supreme head of religious matters. Regarding his baptism, it is reasonable to ask, Was it preceded by genuine repentance and a turning around, as required in the Scriptures? (Acts 2:38, 40, 41) Was it a complete water immersion as a symbol of Constantine’s dedication to Jehovah God? Compare Acts 8:36-39.

A “Saint”?

The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “Constantine was entitled to be called Great in virtue rather of what he did than what he was. Tested by character, indeed, he stands among the lowest of all those to whom the epithet [Great] has in ancient or modern times been applied.” And the book A History of Christianity informs us: “There were early reports of his violent temper and his cruelty in anger…He had no respect for human life…His private life became monstrous as he aged.”

Evidently Constantine had serious personality problems. A history researcher states that “his temperamental character was often the reason for his committing crimes.” (See “Dynastic Murders.”) Constantine was not “a Christian character,” contends historian H. Fisher in his History of Europe. The facts do not characterize him as a true Christian who had put on “the new personality” and in whom there could be found the fruitage of God’s holy spirit-love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, and self-control. Colossians 3:9, 10; Galatians 5:22, 23.

The Consequences of His Efforts

As the pagan Pontifex Maximus and therefore the religious head of the Roman Empire, Constantine tried to win over the bishops of the apostate church. He offered them positions of power, prominence, and wealth as officers of the Roman State religion. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “Some bishops, blinded by the splendour of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heaven.”

As apostate Christianity came into favor with the political government, it became more and more a part of this world, of this secular system, and drifted away from the teachings of Jesus Christ. (John 15:19; 17:14, 16; Revelation 17:1, 2) As a result, there was a fusion of “Christianity” with false doctrines and practices-the Trinity, immortality of the soul, hellfire, purgatory, prayers for the dead, use of rosaries, icons, images, and the like. Compare 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

From Constantine, the church also inherited the tendency to be authoritarian. Scholars Henderson and Buck say: “The simplicity of the Gospel was corrupted, pompous rites and ceremonies were introduced, worldly honours and emoluments were conferred on the teachers of Christianity, and the Kingdom of Christ in good measure converted into a kingdom of this world.”

Historical facts reveal the truth behind the “greatness” of Constantine. Instead of being founded by Jesus Christ, the Head of the true Christian congregation, Christendom is partly the result of the political expediency and the crafty maneuvers of a pagan emperor. Very aptly, historian Paul Johnson asks: “Did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire?”

Constantine and the Council of Nicaea

What role did the unbaptized Emperor Constantine play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions … Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”

After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he was determined to solidify his empire.

Regarding the final document that was drafted in Nicaea under Constantine’s auspices, Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) observes: “It shows [Constantine’s] indifference to doctrinal matters,…his stubborn insistence in trying to restore unity within the church at any cost, and finally his conviction that as ‘bishop of those outside the church’ he had the final say about any religious matter.” Could God’s spirit possibly have been behind the decisions made at that council? Compare Acts 15:28, 29.

Dynastic Murders

Under this heading, the work Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) describes what it calls “disgusting domestic crimes that Constantine committed.” Soon after founding his dynasty, he forgot how to enjoy unexpected achievement and became aware of the dangers surrounding him. Being a suspicious person and perhaps egged on by sycophants, he first grew suspicious of his nephew Licinianus, the son of a co-Augustus he had already executed, as a possible rival. His murder was followed by the execution of Constantine’s own firstborn son, Crispus, who was dealt with by his stepmother Fausta because he seemed to be an obstruction to her own offspring’s total power.

This action of Fausta was finally the reason for her own dramatic death. It appears that Augusta Helena, who had influence over her son Constantine until the end, was involved in this murder. The illogical emotions that often controlled Constantine also contributed to the spate of executions of many of his friends and associates. The book History of the Middle Ages concludes: “The execution,not to say murder, of his own son and his wife indicates that he was untouched by any spiritual influence in Christianity.”

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Everyone who picks up a Bible and affirms any scriptures written therein (whether consciously or not) validates the authenticity and authority of the Orthodox Christian Church. When we pick up a Bible and profess it as being the genuine word of God, we also preserve the notion that somehow and someway the Holy Spirit was moving through 318 Orthodox Christian bishops following the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD. These Orthodox Christian bishops were part of the One Body of Christ. Heretics were gradually excommunicated out of the purest of Christian communities for their false doctrines and deviating dogmas. As heretics arose (such as the Nicolaitans, the gnostics, Nestorians, Arians, monophysites, etc), the Church realized the need to emphatically verbalize and expound upon the Faith of their predecessors in clearer and more eloquent terms.

When a region was corrupted by a particular heresy, epistles by Orthodox Christian bishops/presbyters would be sent to those Christian communities and/or a journey to that area would be undertaken to absolve any false notions. On the other hand, when a heresy spread across an extensive territory, a different approach was implemented - the convening of Ecumenical Councils. In fact, under such a pretense was the First Ecumenical Council convened; a significant portion of the Christian communities in the early 4th century began to falsely believe that Jesus Christ was merely a man and not God Incarnate after following in the strayed teachings of an Orthodox Christian priest named Arius of Alexandria.

As was necessary for the salvation of all Christians, a Council was convened in 325 AD to settle the issue. The participants of this Council recognized that the Holy Spirit which functioned within the Church would infallibly declare the Truth. As it turned out, after months of prayers, analysis of manuscripts from Apostolic successors, and profound discussion & debate from both “sides”, the confession that Jesus Christ was in fact God Incarnate was boldly reiterated to the world. The Bible underwent its initial stage of compilation during this First Ecumenical Council as did the formulation of the Nicene Creed. Most people are uneducated to the fact that this same Church not only produced & compiled the Bible, but also held a total of Seven Ecumenical Councils before the Great Schism of 1054 AD as well as two more thereafter [for a total of nine].

Types of ways we understand the compilation of the Holy Bible:
b[/b] it just fell outta the sky
b[/b] that sinister men were chosen by God to become His vessels to help spread the Truth
b[/b] that righteous men were chosen by God to become His vessels to help spread the Truth

I remain convinced that the Bible was compiled according to b[/b]; that those Orthodox Christian bishops were empowered by the power of the Holy Spirit not because they were wicked heretics who’d fallen away into apostasy as someone has asserted, but because they remained steadfast in the fullness of Truth as the Holy Apostle Paul commanded centuries earlier.[/quote]

They were not necessarily ‘wicked’. You can refer to my other posts recently that show how they basically compromised and some, no doubt, sincerely believed what they were propogating. But they were sincerely wrong. Did you know about 2000 bishops were invited and only 318(around 250 according to Eusebius) actually bothered to show?[quote]

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

Peace be with all.[/quote]

You still keep quoting this same scripture that in no way implies that their ‘word’ was any different than their ‘epistles’. If anything, it implies they would say the same thing.

Don’t ever forget 2 Tim. 3:16: “All SCRIPTURE is inspired of God.” Sorry, doesn’t say anything about oral traditions not included in scripture even though the SAME WRITER writes both of these scriptures with the letter to Timothy being written over 10 years later.

Fishlips,
Just want to clarify here. First, by Nicea, the bible had been translated and re-translated and there are several texts of each Gospel which cannot be differentiated-we know for example, that they were edited by the original authors depending on the length of the scroll. I do not doubt that Paul said both three that bear witness on earth AND three that bear witness in heaven. I suspect that some perhaps even oldest texts fo not include both, but the church did not probably add any “lines” (for example, Paul may have been asked, why do you say three who testify on Earth, and qualified it by saying “also three who witness in heaven.” That is why the tradition is important.

At MOST, what I call “edited” was a matter of choosing the best combination of texts and possibly contextual “amplification” similar to the amplified bible you mention.

As for the Apocryphal books, didn’t you quote Daniel about a week ago?

As for the Liturgy of Saint James, if it could be historically authenticated, the words would be a crushing blow to Unitarianism. I don’t doubt that its current form has been “updated” but there was something there-some prototype. Not talking about the Trinity and the Eucharist right now, I have read historians who say that it is unquestionable that James (who had been a Jewish priest) and the Christians in Jerusalem (who were a solid majority of the “Jews” became a fulfilled “sect” of Judaism and maintained the weekly services in a modified form. It is estimated that by 50 AD 3/4 of the Jews in Jerusalem belonged to the “Christian” sect.

I am just curious what you think they did in there services? Read the Torah? Did they have a “memorial” last supper service. Again, just curious.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips,
Just want to clarify here. First, by Nicea, the bible had been translated and re-translated and there are several texts of each Gospel which cannot be differentiated-we know for example, that they were edited by the original authors depending on the length of the scroll.[/quote]

What are you referring to here? The only change of any gospel, if you can call it that, was the translation Matthew made of his own gospel from Hebrew into Greek. [quote]

I do not doubt that Paul said both three that bear witness on earth AND three that bear witness in heaven. I suspect that some perhaps even oldest texts fo not include both, but the church did not probably add any “lines” (for example, Paul may have been asked, why do you say three who testify on Earth, and qualified it by saying “also three who witness in heaven.” That is why the tradition is important. [/quote]

You really need to corraborate such statements. You state as fact things that you show no basis for. Neither the reference to earth nor heaven was made by the writer John not Paul. According to A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, this “is lacking in all Greek MSS except very late ones; in all ancient versions except the Latin; in about fifty Vulgate MSS, including the best, likewise in the majority of Greek and Latin Fathers…It is now generally held that this passage, called the Comma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries.” Evidently these words were made to ‘creep into the text’ to fill a pressing need: lack of any clear proof for the “Trinity” doctrine elsewhere in the Bible. The rest of what you say also does not make sense. What are you trying to say?[quote]

At MOST, what I call “edited” was a matter of choosing the best combination of texts and possibly contextual “amplification” similar to the amplified bible you mention.[/quote]

I didn’t believe the bible books had been ‘edited’ as you said. I just thought it funny you would make that comment and so brought out some of the implications of that idea.[quote]

As for the Apocryphal books, didn’t you quote Daniel about a week ago?[/quote]

Daniel is not Apocryphal. Simply being referred to in an Apocryphal writing doesn’t make Daniel so. Jesus himself referred to Daniel at Mt. 24:15.[quote]

As for the Liturgy of Saint James, if it could be historically authenticated, the words would be a crushing blow to Unitarianism.[/quote]

Did you not write earlier: Again, would you find a scholarly source which disputes the authenticity of the early church services from the time of the Apostles(of which you were referring to the liturgy of James).(pg. 35 for reference) So, basically, in an earlier post you ask me to dispute the authenticity of this liturgy that you now acknowledge there is no authentication of?[quote]

I don’t doubt that its current form has been “updated” but there was something there-some prototype.[/quote]

It seems when I press you that you steadily rescind ideas you have previously asserted as fact and/or ‘soften’ your stance.[quote]

Not talking about the Trinity and the Eucharist right now, I have read historians who say that it is unquestionable that James (who had been a Jewish priest) and the Christians in Jerusalem (who were a solid majority of the “Jews” became a fulfilled “sect” of Judaism and maintained the weekly services in a modified form. It is estimated that by 50 AD 3/4 of the Jews in Jerusalem belonged to the “Christian” sect. [/quote]

First, James was not a Jewish priest(this James being Jesus half-brother). Again, what do you mean by a ‘solid majority of the Jews’ and a ‘fulfilled’ sect? Yes much of the structure of Jewish worship carried over to the Christians but they certainly discarded the meaningless and destructive traditions Jesus referred to at Mt. 15:3 and Mark 7:13 where he says these ‘traditions’ overstep God’s commandments and make the word of God invalid.

To say 3/4 of the Jews in Jerusalem became Christians is ridiculous. They were a hated minority. Imagining there were still as many as you say in 66 CE when Jerusalem was first assaulted by Roman General Cestius Gallus, did 3/4 of the Jewish population of Jerusalem flee to the mountains for safety(that’s why the Christians survived), then leaving over 1 million still in Jerusalem to suffer the final attack by the Romans in 70 CE?[quote]

I am just curious what you think they did in there services? Read the Torah? Did they have a “memorial” last supper service. Again, just curious. [/quote]

In the first century, manifestations of the miraculous gifts of the spirit were a prominent feature of Christian meetings(these would be done away with once they had served their purpose of identifying who were now God’s people 1 Cor. 13:8). Prayers were offered, praises to God were sung, and emphasis was placed on prophesying (that is, conveying revelations of the divine will and purpose) and imparting instruction that would upbuild those who heard it. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible says: “The prophets and teachers explain to the believers, and apply to their lives and circumstances, the message of salvation that was brought them by the apostles.” They were also all evangelizers and needed to be instructed in this work, only in this way did Christianity spread so rapidly. Paul’s words: “What is to be done, then, brothers? When you come together, one has a psalm, another has a teaching, another has a revelation, another has a tongue, another has an interpretation. Let all things take place for upbuilding…Further, let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. But if there is a revelation to another one while sitting there, let the first one keep silent…let all things take place decently and by arrangement.” In time the letters of Paul and others were included in the reading of the Scriptures at these places. (1 Cor. 14:26-33, 40; Col. 4:16.) It doesn’t appear that there was any overly rigid structure to their meetings.

The ‘memorial’ service of Christ’s death would have been commemorated once a year, on Nisan 14, just like the Passover which it supplanted.

Some additional good quotes on the authenticity of bible writings:
“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.” (The Bible and Archaeology, by Sir Frederic Kenyon)

“The general reader and student of the Bible may be satisfied to note that nothing in all this(discovering of the dead sea scrolls) changes our understanding of the religious teachings of the Bible…The essential truth and the will of God revealed in the Bible, however, have been preserved unchanged through all the vicissitudes in the transmission of the text.” The Dead Sea Scrolls, by Millar Burrows.

Well it appears the discussion is over. REAL bible truth has prevailed. It’s been a slice.

FL

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Well it appears the discussion is over. REAL bible truth has prevailed. It’s been a slice.

FL[/quote]

The only truth in regards to the Holy Bible comes from the Holy Church which created it and its God like people, its Saints. To attempt to understand it otherwise being outside its scope is ridiculous. You do not have to agree with the teachings, but that is a different story. Go write another book and then write a study manual for that. You can say whatever you want then. You’ll be just like all the other lost souls out there. laters pk

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Well it appears the discussion is over. REAL bible truth has prevailed. It’s been a slice.

FL

The only truth in regards to the Holy Bible comes from the Holy Church which created it and its God like people, its Saints. To attempt to understand it otherwise being outside its scope is ridiculous. You do not have to agree with the teachings, but that is a different story. Go write another book and then write a study manual for that. You can say whatever you want then. You’ll be just like all the other lost souls out there. laters pk[/quote]

Unlike this post of yours pk, I have actually backed up everything I have said with Scripture and unassailable reasoning which reduced the Orthodox argument to ‘but ya gotta believe our holy church, ya just gotta!’. The ideas put forth by your brethren here have not been able to stand in the face of someone who knows the bible much better and that has clearly been noted even by casual observers. You might notice the quiet slipping away of those who once ‘yelled’ Orthodox teachings on this thread.

One look at the ‘Orthodox Saints’ thread has one rollin’ in the aisles. Constantine, a murderous psycho and ‘Christian’ for the sake of expediency is hailed as a ‘saint’. Many other fanciful stories such as ‘saints’ who beam ‘rice pilaf’ to their owners cuz’ it’s their favorite meal. Not once in the scriptures did Jesus or the apostles perform a miracle for their own advantage or for trivial reasons. Your ‘saints’ many times sound like characters from Harry Potter.

Why put faith in something you can’t even explain or logically defend? And don’t even think of coming back with ‘It’s the MYSTERY of God’, that’s what all who promote lies(including unknowingly) fall back on as it exempts them from reason and examination.

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Unlike this post of yours pk, I have actually backed up everything I have said with Scripture and unassailable reasoning which reduced the Orthodox argument to ‘but ya gotta believe our holy church, ya just gotta!’. The ideas put forth by your brethren here have not been able to stand in the face of someone who knows the bible much better and that has clearly been noted even by casual observers. You might notice the quiet slipping away of those who once ‘yelled’ Orthodox teachings on this thread.

One look at the ‘Orthodox Saints’ thread has one rollin’ in the aisles. Constantine, a murderous psycho and ‘Christian’ for the sake of expediency is hailed as a ‘saint’. Many other fanciful stories such as ‘saints’ who beam ‘rice pilaf’ to their owners cuz’ it’s their favorite meal. Not once in the scriptures did Jesus or the apostles perform a miracle for their own advantage or for trivial reasons. Your ‘saints’ many times sound like characters from Harry Potter.

[/quote]

I like how you say that you use reasoning. i see the state of society from all this reasoning of people.

as far as stellar goes he is in trooper training for the next few months. he would have destroyed you time and time again as he did before. i told him it was a lost cause and i’m glad he is not here to waste his time on you.

people are allowed to repent of their sins and go from being God haters to God lovers like Saint Paul and Saint Constantine did.

laters pk

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Unlike this post of yours pk, I have actually backed up everything I have said with Scripture and unassailable reasoning which reduced the Orthodox argument to ‘but ya gotta believe our holy church, ya just gotta!’. The ideas put forth by your brethren here have not been able to stand in the face of someone who knows the bible much better and that has clearly been noted even by casual observers. You might notice the quiet slipping away of those who once ‘yelled’ Orthodox teachings on this thread.

One look at the ‘Orthodox Saints’ thread has one rollin’ in the aisles. Constantine, a murderous psycho and ‘Christian’ for the sake of expediency is hailed as a ‘saint’. Many other fanciful stories such as ‘saints’ who beam ‘rice pilaf’ to their owners cuz’ it’s their favorite meal. Not once in the scriptures did Jesus or the apostles perform a miracle for their own advantage or for trivial reasons. Your ‘saints’ many times sound like characters from Harry Potter.

I like how you say that you use reasoning. i see the state of society from all this reasoning of people.[/quote]

Unfortunately if you had actually read the posts in this thread you would have seen it was reasoning based on scripture that was never able to be shown to be incorrect.[quote]

as far as stellar goes he is in trooper training for the next few months. he would have destroyed you time and time again as he did before. i told him it was a lost cause and i’m glad he is not here to waste his time on you.[/quote]

If I remember correctly, Stella said that when I went out of town a few weeks back it shouldn’t have inhibited my access to a computer and ability to respond to his posts. Stella could respond if he had any solid counter-points.

You make me laugh. Maybe you should form some sort of support group for people in denial of reality. Stella never made a point I didn’t wipe the floor with if I disagreed.

Nice to see you have volunteered to waste your time instead of his.[quote]

people are allowed to repent of their sins and go from being God haters to God lovers like Saint Paul and Saint Constantine did.

laters pk[/quote]

So true. Too bad Constantine never changed. You started this thread but soon discovered the subject was well beyond you as you’ve hardly been seen. If you think you can actually make a SCRIPTURAL point go ahead. But going back and reading Stella and Mert’s posts and my rebuttals will rightly make you gun-shy. What I can respect in Mert is at least he could humbly acknowledge when his (orthodox)reasoning was not right and started to inquire rather than assert.

i can speak for stellar and say that they don’t have access to computers for non job related activity and he is too busy to waste his time on the weekends. And if he does reply to you on this thread, i’ll kick his ass! He has to learn when to leave the scrap for the dogs and shake the dust off his shoes. oh and let me know when you are ordained as a Saint. until then keep trying to reinvent the wheel. laters pk

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
i can speak for stellar and say that they don’t have access to computers for non job related activity and he is too busy to waste his time on the weekends. And if he does reply to you on this thread, i’ll kick his ass! He has to learn when to leave the scrap for the dogs and shake the dust off his shoes. oh and let me know when you are ordained as a Saint. until then keep trying to reinvent the wheel. laters pk[/quote]

I am absolutely positive you had a point here but it just isn’t apparent.

Ba Bye.

I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER, EXCEPT THROUGH ME.
JESUS

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
I am absolutely positive you had a point here but it just isn’t apparent.
[/quote]

It is understandable for you not to understand many things.

The following is from an article printed in Gospel Readings, St. Alexander Nevsky Church. It is meant to be read by an Orthodox audience.

One ought to read or listen to the sacred Scriptures, in that they are the word of God, with reverence and with prayer to God that He grant the grace of understanding. Since the Sacred scriptures were written down under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, we can understand them correctly only with the assistance of the Spirit of God. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;” the apostle Paul teaches, “for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14).

By “natural man” the apostle means one who does not have the Spirit of God within him, but judges spititual things by the understaning of his reason, without submitting himself to faith. Just as in the visible world, we cannot see and recognize external objects if the light of the sun does not shine and show them to us, so also, in the spiritual life, we can understand and perceice spiritual subjects only in the light of the Spirit of God. Our mind can only comprehend divine teaching when the grace of the Holy Spirit enlightens it.

One must understand the sacred Scriptures as the Holy church explains them, and as the holy fathers and teachers of the Church understood them. When one reads the word of God attentively and reverently, there will be much that is not easily comprehended. Concerning that which is not clear and understandable to you, ask the pastors and teachers of the Church, but do not take it upon yourself to interpret it in the way it appears to you.

In reading or listening to the sacred Scriptures one ought not to desire to understand everything that is said there; rather it is necessary to take unto one’s edification, with reverence and thankfulness to the all-good heavenly Father, that which is accessible to our understanding, under the guidance of the Holy Church. In the word of God there are many mysteries which are inaccessible to man’s understanding. The word of God, like a spiritual light, reveals to us the invisible, spiritual world.

Just as in this world, which lies spread out before us, we see and understand only a little, only a portion; we only see what is around us, and even then only the external aspects of things, while what is within, we do not see…Thus it is also in the word of God: spiritual subjects are only partly revealed to us, and we understand them only in part; but beyond them there is the unbounded expanse of that which is hidden. Be not troubled in the mind over what is unattainable, but give thanks unto God for what is revealed to you…Thus it is not necessary for you to know everything or even a great deal; but it is necessary for you to know what is essential for your salvation.

go back and read it one more time if you have the time, laters pk

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Well it appears the discussion is over. REAL bible truth has prevailed. It’s been a slice.

FL

The only truth in regards to the Holy Bible comes from the Holy Church which created it and its God like people, its Saints. To attempt to understand it otherwise being outside its scope is ridiculous. You do not have to agree with the teachings, but that is a different story. Go write another book and then write a study manual for that. You can say whatever you want then. You’ll be just like all the other lost souls out there. laters pk

Unlike this post of yours pk, I have actually backed up everything I have said with Scripture and unassailable reasoning which reduced the Orthodox argument to ‘but ya gotta believe our holy church, ya just gotta!’. The ideas put forth by your brethren here have not been able to stand in the face of someone who knows the bible much better and that has clearly been noted even by casual observers. You might notice the quiet slipping away of those who once ‘yelled’ Orthodox teachings on this thread.
[/quote]

I for one just decided that you are using a historical mythology as the SOLE basis of your argument. YOU argue that the church of the apostles died with the apostles and that what I call orthodoxy (which you consider to be heretical to the apostles) EMERGED by about 150 and started to grow at that point. Its 60 years of pure specualation that you base everything on because if the church remained unbroken during this time, it doesn’t matter what the bible says or does not say, there is an unbroken tradition.

So when I say mythological, I can’t find it in any history of Christianity textbook. I’m sure your organization has produced one by now, but mainstream history does not support it.

When you get to use a big 60 year “flood” if you will to conjure up whatever you desire, it’s not a reasonable debate any more.

WE believe that the church stayed intact and preserved the apostles teachings between 90 and 150. You don’t. Your only argument has been that the teachings of the church post 150 are not what YOU THINK the teachings were before 90. Again, that’s not a “logical” argument because your using your conclusion as its own and only support.

That’s why I stopped coming.

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
This is just a fire starter to all who consider themselves “Christians.” Realize the importance of Apostolic succession as stated in the Holy Bible. Then go trace the succession of your own church. Realize that there is only one truth and any deviations from it make something a lie. I just wanted to make that comment while the election of the new Franco-Latin “pope” was still fresh in people’s heads. And no matter how long the lie exists for, it is still a lie. laters pk[/quote]

The one true religion would be the one which follows strictly the teachings of the Bible. More specifically the teachings of Jesus because his death signified the end of the Abrahamic covenant. Apostolic succession isn’t mentioned in the Bible. It’s a doctrine that was created after the writing of the Bible.

If you agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Meaning, it was written by men through the direction of the Holy Spirit (2Tim 3:16 "All scripture is inspired of God…). Then apostolic succession cannot be part of the “true” religion since it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. It is a doctrine which was created after the Bible was written. This is significant because Revelation 22:18-19 tells us “If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life…”. In laymans terms, if you add anything to what is said in the Bible you have no hope of everlasting life. So it would appear that apostolic succession is not part of the true religion.

This argument only hold true if you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If you don’t believe it, then there is no standard or basis for any Christian religion. Just the opinions of men.

On what pkradgreek wrote:

PK this all makes sense and I agree, for the most part, with the thoughts expressed. However, the SOURCE to explain what the bible really teaches is where we differ greatly as well as the fact that you can not discount the use of any and all intelligent reason to realize what is the truth of the bible when you hear it.

Acts chapter 17 would be a real good chapter for you to read. Look at vss. 2-4 where it says ‘according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them’ and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and [saying]: “This is the Christ, this Jesus whom I am publishing to YOU.” As a result some of them became believers and associated themselves with Paul and Silas, and a great multitude of the Greeks who worshiped [God] and not a few of the principal women did so.’

That makes it very clear he was appealing to his listeners’ INTELLECT and REASON to comprehend the truth he was preaching. He certainly didn’t say ‘I am part of the true church, you must listen to me’ although for their later biblical education they would have to do that.

Later in the same chapter he preached to the Beroeans where their reaction was ‘more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.’ They weren’t about to accept what Paul was preaching, an apostle mind you, unless it coincided with what their own examination of the bible concluded. Would you tell these people they shouldn’t be using their reasoning abilities but just accept what Paul was saying? The bible account makes it clear again that God approves of people who do a sensible examination of the bible to recognize when they hear the truth.

Not once has anyone who disagreed with my posts been able to show why my reasoning was incorrect. Tell me where in these scriptures I have gone wrong, please.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Well it appears the discussion is over. REAL bible truth has prevailed. It’s been a slice.

FL

The only truth in regards to the Holy Bible comes from the Holy Church which created it and its God like people, its Saints. To attempt to understand it otherwise being outside its scope is ridiculous. You do not have to agree with the teachings, but that is a different story. Go write another book and then write a study manual for that. You can say whatever you want then. You’ll be just like all the other lost souls out there. laters pk

Unlike this post of yours pk, I have actually backed up everything I have said with Scripture and unassailable reasoning which reduced the Orthodox argument to ‘but ya gotta believe our holy church, ya just gotta!’. The ideas put forth by your brethren here have not been able to stand in the face of someone who knows the bible much better and that has clearly been noted even by casual observers. You might notice the quiet slipping away of those who once ‘yelled’ Orthodox teachings on this thread.

I for one just decided that you are using a historical mythology as the SOLE basis of your argument. YOU argue that the church of the apostles died with the apostles and that what I call orthodoxy (which you consider to be heretical to the apostles) EMERGED by about 150 and started to grow at that point. Its 60 years of pure specualation that you base everything on because if the church remained unbroken during this time, it doesn’t matter what the bible says or does not say, there is an unbroken tradition.[/quote]

Mert, you ask where my ideas on this matter come from, make no counter-argument whatsoever, and now return to say you gave up at that point? I don’t buy it. For one thing, you’re a smart guy. If what you’ve said above is what you got out of my posts you need to re-read them. I very clearly said deviant teachings were entering Christianity as soon as 20 years after Jesus death.

No, they didn’t start to emerge around 150 CE, they were evident 100 years earlier in their embryonic forms and some hadn’t even arisen yet. I can’t believe, under any context, that you could possibly say ‘it doesn’t matter what the bible says’. Reveals how you truly feel about scripture which you claim to not contradict.

[quote]

So when I say mythological, I can’t find it in any history of Christianity textbook. I’m sure your organization has produced one by now, but mainstream history does not support it.[/quote]

Ummmm, apparently you weren’t paying attention again. I posted history GALORE for you to examine as to when your church’s teachings arose as opposed to when the bible was written and who and how those ideas came to light. Must have missed it, eh?

[quote]

When you get to use a big 60 year “flood” if you will to conjure up whatever you desire, it’s not a reasonable debate any more.

WE believe that the church stayed intact and preserved the apostles teachings between 90 and 150. You don’t. Your only argument has been that the teachings of the church post 150 are not what YOU THINK the teachings were before 90. Again, that’s not a “logical” argument because your using your conclusion as its own and only support.

That’s why I stopped coming. [/quote]

Seeing as you again avoided dealing with the scriptures I’ll re-post something for you and I’d love to hear your retort and explanation for these expressions of Paul and John.

"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.

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.

The floor is yours.