Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
902

[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
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

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.
[/quote]

So do you accept the trinity-which Fishlips argues was “conceived” after the bible?

You’ll have to back read a lot to see the biblical evidence that Christ set up apostolic succession.

“that which is received equally can be given equally” and others-it’s way too tedious to re-hash that at this point.

But the new testament was Preserved, selected and put in order by the representatives of the Orthodox church who maintained the tradition of Apostolic succession.

903

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
"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.[/quote]

As I said before, its just as easy to argue that YOUR beliefs are the heretical ones discussed here. This scripture doesn’t add anything, the exists independently as to how to identify which beliefs are heretical and which are Orthodox.

904

And you argue that the teachings of the church became paganized or hellinised contrary to the original teachings, but Jesus, and John used terms straight out of Greek philosophy, such as Logos. According to your logic, couldn’t the use of the term Logos be considered a concession to paganism?

905

On what mertdawg wrote:

Last time this subject came up you surmised the ‘man of lawlessness’ sounded like the pope. It’s apparent you’re just guessing. Clarify your last sentence it’s garbled. It would be nice if you actually said what the Orthodox belief is about what these scriptures are evidently saying about what was happening to Christianity as a whole at that time.

What is the ‘apostasy’?
Who is the ‘man of lawlessness’?
What is John referring to as the ‘last hour’ and why does he connect it with ‘antichrists’?

Here’s your chance to show the Orthodox Church’s insight on these scriptures.

906

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
And you argue that the teachings of the church became paganized or hellinised contrary to the original teachings, but Jesus, and John used terms straight out of Greek philosophy, such as Logos. According to your logic, couldn’t the use of the term Logos be considered a concession to paganism?[/quote]

Now since ‘logos’ was a Greek word before it was ever used to describe a philosophy by Heraclitus and others after him, were Jesus, John etc. bound to the philosophical uses some were applying to the term? i.e. Catholicism uses the term ‘Assumption’ in their dogma. Now if I care to use the term ‘assumption’ when talking to someone am I bound by the Catholic idea behind that word? I think this should be clear.

Also bear in mind this interesting point, 'Encyclopaedia Britannica (1974 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. VI, p. 302): “The identification of Jesus with the logos, which is implicitly stated in various places in the New Testament but very specifically in the Fourth Gospel, was further developed in the early church but more on the basis of Greek philosophical ideas than on Old Testament motifs.”
Another testimony to a LATER perversion of Christ’s identity.

907

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
ConanSpeaks wrote:
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

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.

So do you accept the trinity-which Fishlips argues was “conceived” after the bible?[/quote]

Incorrect mert. Trinity godheads existed in many religions prior to the ‘Christian’ one. The pagan idea of a triune god infiltrated the early church through these previously existing philosophical and religious teachings. Or is it just a big coinkidink that Christians could now have their very own trinity god?[quote]

You’ll have to back read a lot to see the biblical evidence that Christ set up apostolic succession.

“that which is received equally can be given equally” and others-it’s way too tedious to re-hash that at this point.[/quote]

Which scripture are you quoting here? Is it the one which in most translations simply says ‘you received free, give free’ which we know was not referring to anything to do with succession? A search of several translations turned up no such scripture.[quote]

But the new testament was Preserved, selected and put in order by the representatives of the Orthodox church who maintained the tradition of Apostolic succession.[/quote]

You guys continue to talk like the bible wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for your glorious church. Uh sorry, the bible is GOD’s word not the church’s. I’ve also quoted plenty history to show the bible canon was well established before the 4th century church councils. It’s also a simple fact that God often used sources(i.e. the Babylonians in destroying Jerusalem) that did NOT meet with his approval to do his will. Do you want to dispute this?

908

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
On what mertdawg wrote:

Last time this subject came up you surmised the ‘man of lawlessness’ sounded like the pope. [/quote]

You said there were many antichrists.

909

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
And you argue that the teachings of the church became paganized or hellinised contrary to the original teachings, but Jesus, and John used terms straight out of Greek philosophy, such as Logos. According to your logic, couldn’t the use of the term Logos be considered a concession to paganism?

Now since ‘logos’ was a Greek word before it was ever used to describe a philosophy by Heraclitus and others after him, were Jesus, John etc. bound to the philosophical uses some were applying to the term? [/quote]

It’s truly interesting because I always view the Platonistic philosophy of the Logos Spermata as the foundation of the Unitarian Heresy which I identify you with, primarily an ofshoot of Albagencianism.

910

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Clarify your last sentence it’s garbled. It would be nice if you actually said what the Orthodox belief is about what these scriptures are evidently saying about what was happening to Christianity as a whole at that time.
[/quote]

I wanted to say that the scripture about the apostacy only proves that there was an apostasy-which we can both agree on without it. It does not tell us how to identify whether the apostate is me or you.

I will do research on the Orthodox view of this scripture. Hosnestly, it doesn’t sound like a big deal. Just “watch out for the heretics”.

And earlier, I meant to say that if it can be shown that the Church practiced apostolic succession back to the Apostles and that THEY endorsed it, then it doesn’t matter how YOU decide to interpret the bible. I’m saying that as I see it, that’s the only question out on the table, and to argue about others seems to be obfuscating.

911

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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]

Thank you, you prove my point exactly, Apostle Paul was a Saint. He had the ability to speak the Truth. You and I are not and do not have that ability. Also Acts was written to an Orthodox audience, people who already had faith and were following the Church, unlike the Gospels which were written for pagans and Jews. I do not claim to know the Truth in fullness, what i do know, i learned and continue to learn from the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church who had communion with God and were God like. Would you go to a white belt to learn karate or to a black belt. laters pk

912

Today is Holy Pentecost

In the Church’s annual liturgical cycle, Pentecost is “the last and great day.” It is the celebration by the Church of the coming of the Holy Spirit as the end - the achievement and fulfillment - of the entire history of salvation. For the same reason, however, it is also the celebration of the beginning: it is the “birthday” of the Church as the presence among us of the Holy Spirit, of the new life in Christ, of grace, knowledge, adoption to God and holiness.

This double meaning and double joy is revealed to us, first of all, in the very name of the feast. Pentecost in Greek means fifty, and in the sacred biblical symbolism of numbers, the number fifty symbolizes both the fulness of time and that which is beyond time: the Kingdom of God itself. It symbolizes the fulness of time by its first component: 49, which is the fulness of seven (7 x 7): the number of time. And, it symbolizes that which is beyond time by its second component: 49 + 1, this one being the new day, the “day without evening” of God’s eternal Kingdom. With the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Christ’s disciples, the time of salvation, the Divine work of redemption has been completed, the fulness revealed, all gifts bestowed: it belongs to us now to “appropriate” these gifts, to be that which we have become in Christ: participants and citizens of His Kingdom.

THE VIGIL OF PENTECOST

The all-night Vigil service begins with a solemn invitation:

“Let us celebrate Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit, The appointed day of promise, and the fulfillment of hope, The mystery which is as great as it is precious.”

In the coming of the Spirit, the very essence of the Church is revealed:

“The Holy Spirit provides all, Overflows with prophecy, fulfills the priesthood, Has taught wisdom to illiterates, has revealed fishermen as theologians, He brings together the whole council of the Church.”

In the three readings of the Old Testament (Numbers 11:16-17, 24-29; Joel 2:23-32; Ezekiel 36:24-28) we hear the prophecies concerning the Holy Spirit. We are taught that the entire history of mankind was directed towards the day on which God “would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh.” This day has come! All hope, all promises, all expectations have been fulfilled. At the end of the Aposticha hymns, for the first time since Easter, we sing the hymn: “O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth?,” the one with which we inaugurate all our services, all prayers, which is, as it were, the life-breath of the Church, and whose coming to us, whose “descent” upon us in this festal Vigil, is indeed the very experience of the Holy Spirit “coming and abiding in us.”

Having reached its climax, the Vigil continues as an explosion of joy and light for “verily the light of the Comforter has come and illumined the world.” In the Gospel reading (John 20:19-23) the feast is interpreted to us as the feast of the Church, of her divine nature, power and authority. The Lord sends His disciples into the world, as He Himself was sent by His Father. Later, in the antiphons of the Liturgy, we proclaim the universality of the apostles’ preaching, the cosmical significance of the feast, the sanctification of the whole world, the true manifestation of God’s Kingdom.

THE VESPERS OF PENTECOST

The liturgical peculiarity of Pentecost is a very special Vespers of the day itself. Usually this service follows immediately the Divine Liturgy, is “added” to it as its own fulfillment. The service begins as a solemn “summing up” of the entire celebration, as its liturgical synthesis. We hold flowers in our hands symbolizing the joy of the eternal spring, inaugurated by the coming of the Holy Spirit. After the festal Entrance, this joy reaches its climax in the singing of the Great Prokeimenon:

“Who is so great a God as our God?”

Then, having reached this climax, we are invited to kneel. This is our first kneeling since Easter. It signifies that after these fifty days of Paschal joy and fulness, of experiencing the Kingdom of God, the Church now is about to begin her pilgrimage through time and history. It is evening again, and the night approaches, during which temptations and failures await us, when, more than anything else, we need Divine help, that presence and power of the Holy Spirit, who has already revealed to us the joyful End, who now will help us in our effort towards fulfillment and salvation.

All this is revealed in the three prayers which the celebrant reads now as we all kneel and listen to him. In the first prayer, we bring to God our repentance, our increased appeal for forgiveness of sins, the first condition for entering into the Kingdom of God.

In the second prayer, we ask the Holy Spirit to help us, to teach us to pray and to follow the true path in the dark and difficult night of our earthly existence. Finally, in the third prayer, we remember all those who have achieved their earthly journey, but who are united with us in the eternal God of Love.

The joy of Easter has been completed and we again have to wait for the dawn of the Eternal Day. Yet, knowing our weakness, humbling ourselves by kneeling, we also know the joy and the power of the Holy Spirit who has come. We know that God is with us, that in Him is our victory.

Thus is completed the feast of Pentecost and we enter “the ordinary time” of the year. Yet, every Sunday now will be called “after Pentecost” - and this means that it is from the power and light of these fifty days that we shall receive our own power, the Divine help in our daily struggle. At Pentecost we decorate our churches with flowers and green branches - for the Church “never grows old, but is always young.” It is an evergreen, ever-living Tree of grace and life, of joy and comfort. For the Holy Spirit - “the Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life - comes and abides in us, and cleanses us from all impurity,” and fills our life with meaning, love, faith and hope.

Father Alexander Schmemann (1974)

it is truly a blessing to be a part of the Church. laters pk

913

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
And you argue that the teachings of the church became paganized or hellinised contrary to the original teachings, but Jesus, and John used terms straight out of Greek philosophy, such as Logos. According to your logic, couldn’t the use of the term Logos be considered a concession to paganism?

Now since ‘logos’ was a Greek word before it was ever used to describe a philosophy by Heraclitus and others after him, were Jesus, John etc. bound to the philosophical uses some were applying to the term?

It’s truly interesting because I always view the Platonistic philosophy of the Logos Spermata as the foundation of the Unitarian Heresy which I identify you with, primarily an ofshoot of Albagencianism.[/quote]

Talk about turning yourself inside out. Your arguments are so devoid of logic. So now you’re jumping 1200 years ahead. You berate me for a 60 year jump I never made but this is apparently no stretch for you. And, once again, you just throw out a statement with no supporting explanation. First you said I was an offshoot of Arianism, now it’s Albigensianism. What’s next, Hari Krishna?

And if you see Albigensianism as the heresy does that mean you side with the Catholic Inquisition which exterminated them through torture and murder and who didn’t want the bible in the hands of the common people?

914

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
On what mertdawg wrote:

Last time this subject came up you surmised the ‘man of lawlessness’ sounded like the pope.

You said there were many antichrists.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

915

[quote]Kuz wrote:
I took it to mean a different faith in that he talks about the the Franco-Latin “pope” (the pope part in quotes seems to be sarcasm to me).

Also, something he wrote in another thread about priests marrying made me think he might be Eastern/Greek Orthodox. This is all speculation on my part for now so I am hoping for clarification.

Kuz[/quote]

the pope needs no quotation marks to denote sarcasm. the moniker pope, itself, denotes an air of hypocrisy and sarcasm…

also, i ‘might’ be wrong here but, i believe the fact that his board name is ‘pkradgreek’ gives one some insight into what his ethnic background is…

916

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
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.

Thank you, you prove my point exactly, Apostle Paul was a Saint. He had the ability to speak the Truth. You and I are not and do not have that ability. Also Acts was written to an Orthodox audience, people who already had faith and were following the Church, unlike the Gospels which were written for pagans and Jews. I do not claim to know the Truth in fullness, what i do know, i learned and continue to learn from the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church who had communion with God and were God like. Would you go to a white belt to learn karate or to a black belt. laters pk
[/quote]

Actually…no I showed why you were ultimately wrong. It’s a sad pattern that the Orthodox opinion is that you shouldn’t try to use any measure of reason to understand the bible. Guess that’s how you come up with your insane conclusions.

Anyone who has learned the truth can speak truth. It’s a Christian’s responsibility. It’s really irrelevant who the audience was for the book of Acts. It was a history of the development of Christianity for almost 30 years after Christ’s death. What I quoted showed how the scriptures were held superior to even what an apostle was telling them. You seemed to miss that point. I’ll say it for you again…an examination of the scriptures with REASON and INTELLECT led those pagans spoken to in the first quote and the followers in the second quote to accept what they heard.

Do you think the Beroeans would have accepted what Paul told them if what he said did not coincide with their examination of the scriptures?
Don’t avoid the questions this time.

917

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Clarify your last sentence it’s garbled. It would be nice if you actually said what the Orthodox belief is about what these scriptures are evidently saying about what was happening to Christianity as a whole at that time.

I wanted to say that the scripture about the apostacy only proves that there was an apostasy-which we can both agree on without it. It does not tell us how to identify whether the apostate is me or you.[/quote]

You should read the scripture again. It doesn’t say AN apostate, or apostates, would come, it says “THE apostasy”. Sounds like a pretty significant development regarding Christianity. We can identify it’s neither me nor you as Paul said the ‘man of lawlessness’ referred to in conjuction with the apostasy was already starting to show itself then(2 Thess. 2:7) and would be in existence right up till the Lord’s day. That’s almost 2000yrs and counting so it’s no single individual.[quote]

I will do research on the Orthodox view of this scripture. Hosnestly, it doesn’t sound like a big deal. Just “watch out for the heretics”.[/quote]

Let me get this straight…you say a number of scriptures that refer to a specific ominous development in Christian truth ‘doesn’t sound like a big deal’ yet you build an entire religion around apostolic succession which is not even mentioned in the bible? There’s not much room left for you to shoot yourself in the foot anymore.[quote]

And earlier, I meant to say that if it can be shown that the Church practiced apostolic succession back to the Apostles and that THEY endorsed it, then it doesn’t matter how YOU decide to interpret the bible. I’m saying that as I see it, that’s the only question out on the table, and to argue about others seems to be obfuscating.[/quote]

No, to talk about the other GENUINELY important matter confuses YOU, so you don’t want to talk about them.

I’ll include a post you likely purposely avoided from earlier because of how it exposes how you reason.

Mert said:[quote]
When was the Liturgy of Saint James “Forged?” It mentions the ONE HOLY TRINITY over 50 times, and a clear “true presence” in the Eucharist. Again, I posit that it pre-dates ALL of the new testament, but I just want to know if you have found any renegade historian who calls it a forgery.[/quote]

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

Which is it Mert? You say a renegade historian would have to call it a forgery then you say IF it could be historically authenticated that would be great. This is an admittance NO historians EVER authenticated this liturgy. So you lied in your first post implying it has historical authentication which it does not.

This can get REAL painful for you and your religious ideas if you want to continue down this road. You’ve already all taken a beating.

918

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Anyone who has learned the truth can speak truth. It’s a Christian’s responsibility. It’s really irrelevant who the audience was for the book of Acts. It was a history of the development of Christianity for almost 30 years after Christ’s death. What I quoted showed how the scriptures were held superior to even what an apostle was telling them. You seemed to miss that point. I’ll say it for you again…an examination of the scriptures with REASON and INTELLECT led those pagans spoken to in the first quote and the followers in the second quote to accept what they heard.

Do you think the Beroeans would have accepted what Paul told them if what he said did not coincide with their examination of the scriptures?
Don’t avoid the questions this time.[/quote]

Like i quoted in a previous post, you and i do not know the truth, we can learn it and accept it from the God like people of the Church. your arrogance and know it all attitude is astonishing.

How can you say that the reason why Acts was written is irrelavent. Saint Paul was not writting history, he was making history. He was not directing this to a pagan audience, rather people who were part of the Church. You do not teach calculus to someone who does not understand simple algebra.

The pagans were converted by faith. They had no knowledge of Jewish scriptures which Paul speaks about. They accepted the truth because they came into contact with Saints who showed them what the truth was. Only those who were not hard hearted believed, others remained pagans as they still are today. Just because you lack faith does not mean everyone does, just because you have never met a saint does not mean that everyone does not. I have never seen a miracle performed but i still believe. God told the Apostles that they would perform greater miracles then Him, and He was right as He always is.

I will say it once again, i feel blessed to have been born into Orthodoxy but i know that it takes a lot more then faith and knowledge to achieve salvation, i am no better then anyone and i’m far from being purified. laters pk

919

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
[/quote]

Fishlips if you claim to know the Holy Bible so well through your reasoning so please do this for me. Take any sentence or couple of sentences from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark or Luke, write it down and explain it here on the thread. I will then reply to what you wrote with what a Father of the Church said about it. This will not be a debate. Just a simple what you believe it to mean versus what the Church believes. I think we might all learn from this experience but i stress that it will not turn into a debate. I know you have different beliefs then the Church and that is fine by me. laters pk

920

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Anyone who has learned the truth can speak truth. It’s a Christian’s responsibility. It’s really irrelevant who the audience was for the book of Acts. It was a history of the development of Christianity for almost 30 years after Christ’s death. What I quoted showed how the scriptures were held superior to even what an apostle was telling them. You seemed to miss that point. I’ll say it for you again…an examination of the scriptures with REASON and INTELLECT led those pagans spoken to in the first quote and the followers in the second quote to accept what they heard.

Do you think the Beroeans would have accepted what Paul told them if what he said did not coincide with their examination of the scriptures?

Don’t avoid the questions this time.

Like i quoted in a previous post, you and i do not know the truth, we can learn it and accept it from the God like people of the Church. your arrogance and know it all attitude is astonishing.[/quote]

Allow me to clarify something. The use of reason and intellect only gets one so far. I am certainly not saying one can sit down, read the bible then figure it all out through reason. But reason is a big help in understanding much and in DISCARDING much. As I told you in another post we disagree on what that source of proper understanding of biblical truth is.[quote]

How can you say that the reason why Acts was written is irrelavent. Saint Paul was not writting history, he was making history. He was not directing this to a pagan audience, rather people who were part of the Church. You do not teach calculus to someone who does not understand simple algebra.[/quote]

Again you’ve misunderstood. I did not say the ‘reason’ was irrelevant, rather, for the purpose of our discussion the ‘audience’ was irrelevant. Luke was writing this book to Theophilus, so was it only for Theophilus? The audience is irrelevant in that Acts is a relating of how Christianity spread after Christ’s death. Why would the audience make you view this particular book any differently? Ch. 17 vs. 2-4 I quoted before has Paul talking to Jews not Christians and relating how it was they accepted Christianity as the truth. He ‘reasoned’ with them and ‘proved by references’ his points. Now if these people weren’t even Christians how would their fallen sense of reason help them to recognize the truth if, as you say, they shouldn’t try to use it?[quote]

The pagans were converted by faith. They had no knowledge of Jewish scriptures which Paul speaks about. They accepted the truth because they came into contact with Saints who showed them what the truth was. Only those who were not hard hearted believed, others remained pagans as they still are today. Just because you lack faith does not mean everyone does, just because you have never met a saint does not mean that everyone does not. I have never seen a miracle performed but i still believe. God told the Apostles that they would perform greater miracles then Him, and He was right as He always is.[/quote]

Unfortunately, like Mert, you completely mess all the details up. Paul was talking to all kinds of people, Jews and pagans. Pagans converted because, again, they were reasoned with and what they heard was convincing. You almost worship those you designate as ‘Saints’ yet those very individuals wanted no such adoration. Why don’t we look at the scripture you’ve misunderstood at John 14:12: “Most truly I say to you, He that exercises faith in me, that one also will do the works that I do, and he will do works greater than these, because I am going my way to the Father.” Jesus was not only speaking to the apostles here, he says anyone exercising faith in him would do greater works. No limitation to the apostles. And Jesus performed every amazing miracle in the book so how could they perform ‘greater’ works? It was because his followers would be able to speak to far more people and spread the truth much further than Jesus was able to in his short life and the vicinity of Palestine. The spiritual aspect of helping others not the miracle cures was more important as those cured and resurrected would all eventually die or perhaps even get sick again.[quote]

I will say it once again, i feel blessed to have been born into Orthodoxy but i know that it takes a lot more then faith and knowledge to achieve salvation, i am no better then anyone and i’m far from being purified. laters pk[/quote]

It’s a necessary trait to be humble but that humility should also lead us to recognize and accept when something we believe, no matter how dear, is wrong and leave it for the truth.

921

Ok, I’ll satisfy you but if you want to put something here as your belief you’ll need to have some explanation why you believe it’s true not just, ‘a Holy Father said it.’ And I’ve been using scripture since the start. Look back at some of it.

Examine this:
“As regards the resurrection of the dead, did you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.” Matt. 22:31,32.

I’ll leave you to comment first. Don’t want to give away the answer.