Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
922

I am simply saying that an objective hisorian would have to conclude that the TRADITION that the Liturgy of Saint James was preserved intact from Christ is historical evidence, but it would be hard to establish beyond historical criticism that it was (because of the nature of evidence and the long time span).

I think the TRADITION and language used would convince an objective historian that AT LEAST we have a writing that has its origin in historical fact. I believe more, but would not accept a critical historian to.

923

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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.
[/quote]

The Savior shows that there will also be a resurrection, not such a resurrection of the flesh as they mistakenly imagine, but one more divine and more spiritual. Why then are you deluded, not knowing either the Scriptures or the power of God? For if you knew the Scriptures, you would understand that God is not God of the dead but of the living. If you knew the power of God, you would know that for God all things are possible, so that He can make men to live as angels. See the Lord’s wisdom! By using Moses they were intent on overturning the doctrine of the resurrection, but He, also by using Moses, convinces them, quoting, “I am the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.” What Christ means is this: God is not the God of that which is not, but of that which exists and is. For God did not say, “I was,” but “I am.” Even though they had died, they live in hope of the ressurection. But you may ask, “How is it, then, that He says in another place that He is Lord of both the dead and the living?” Learn, then, that “the dead” means, in that passage, those who have died but who shall live again. Here the Lord says, in opposing the heresy of the Sadducees who teach that there is no immortal soul but that it altogether perishes, that He is not God of the dead, that is, of those who appear to us to have utterly perished, but of the living, that is, of those who have an immortal soul and will be resurrected, though they are dead now.

from the Blessed Theophylact, born around 1055 AD

924

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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.[/quote]

how true this is indeed, that was the goal of my original post. The Orthodox Church is the only Church and traces its roots directly to the truth of God and His Apostles. To say that what i follow is wrong, is to say that the Apostles were wrong, and that Our Savior was wrong. I just can’t do that. Amen.

925

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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]

You don’t worship Saints, you try to be like them. that should be the ultimate goal of every human.

You bring up an interesting point obout Jesus living a short lifetime and passing a long the truth to the Apostles who would then spread it along. so how do we know that what you believe was also believed by the Apostles and God. does not the Church which God mentions and was established by the Apostles mean anything as far as the spreading of the truth. The Apostles would die and would need a way to spread the truth.

laters pk

926

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I am simply saying that an objective hisorian would have to conclude that the TRADITION that the Liturgy of Saint James was preserved intact from Christ is historical evidence, but it would be hard to establish beyond historical criticism that it was (because of the nature of evidence and the long time span).

I think the TRADITION and language used would convince an objective historian that AT LEAST we have a writing that has its origin in historical fact. I believe more, but would not accept a critical historian to.

[/quote]
Mert, this is definitely not what you were saying. You were quite adamant it was historically authenticated but now you THINK historians should be convinced by a tradition? Can you imagine how you would flame me if I tried to use this kind of reasoning to justify what I believe? Your saying that because some people have a tradition that makes it a historical fact? That’s ludicrous reasoning. The rest of the bible, sans apocryphal writings, is historically proven to be the authentic writing of the claimed writers so why can’t this liturgy be proven?

Just reading it exposes what a blatant forgery it is. You say over 50 times ‘Holy Trinity’ is mentioned yet NEVER AGAIN is that term mentioned in any other books of the new testament. Pretty bloody important thing to leave out when one writer, whom you claim wrote another book of the bible, can’t stop talking about it, but everybody’s conspicuously silent on the matter after that. And you’re trying to tell me that doesn’t raise any red flags with you?

927

Jesus Christ pointed out to the Sadducees, a sect that did not believe in resurrection, that the writings of Moses in the Hebrew Scriptures, which they possessed and claimed to believe, prove there is a resurrection; Jesus reasoned that when Jehovah said He was “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (who were actually dead), He counted those men as alive because of the resurrection that He, “the God, not of the dead, but of the living,” purposed to give them. God, because of his power, “makes the dead alive and calls the things that are not as though they were.” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead, but God’s purpose to resurrect them was so sure to be fulfilled that to him they were as good as alive.

We know they were not in heaven as Jesus own words at John 3:13 says “Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” These faithful men were dead but viewed as alive by God who knew his future plans for them.

928

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
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.

The Savior shows that there will also be a resurrection, not such a resurrection of the flesh as they mistakenly imagine, but one more divine and more spiritual. Why then are you deluded, not knowing either the Scriptures or the power of God? For if you knew the Scriptures, you would understand that God is not God of the dead but of the living. If you knew the power of God, you would know that for God all things are possible, so that He can make men to live as angels. See the Lord’s wisdom! By using Moses they were intent on overturning the doctrine of the resurrection, but He, also by using Moses, convinces them, quoting, “I am the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.” What Christ means is this: God is not the God of that which is not, but of that which exists and is. For God did not say, “I was,” but “I am.” Even though they had died, they live in hope of the ressurection. But you may ask, “How is it, then, that He says in another place that He is Lord of both the dead and the living?” Learn, then, that “the dead” means, in that passage, those who have died but who shall live again. Here the Lord says, in opposing the heresy of the Sadducees who teach that there is no immortal soul but that it altogether perishes, that He is not God of the dead, that is, of those who appear to us to have utterly perished, but of the living, that is, of those who have an immortal soul and will be resurrected, though they are dead now.

from the Blessed Theophylact, born around 1055 AD[/quote]

You don’t think this is absolutely PACKED with inconsistencies?

First off, you don’t have to resurrect something that never died. That’s what ‘immortal’ means, it can’t die. Where would a resurrection fit in if some ‘soul’ part of a being just kept living and went somewhere else? Now if the flesh is the mortal part that dies and the soul doesn’t then he had to be referring to a resurrection of the flesh contrary to what this writer you have quoted said.

“Even though they had died, they live in hope of the ressurection.” How does one live in hope of living again when they’re dead? Sounds rather convoluted.

“…those who have an immortal soul and will be resurrected, though they are dead now.” More of the same non-sensical jibberish. Ummm…thought they had an immortal soul, so how are they dead?

And the writer says the Sadducees were teaching no immortal soul, but they were not, they were denying the resurrection. The writer somehow decides to make them one and the same when they certainly are not.

Ultimately this leaves a question: What would happen to someone with an immortal soul who was not resurrected? Stay dead thought immortal?

929

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
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.

how true this is indeed, that was the goal of my original post. The Orthodox Church is the only Church and traces its roots directly to the truth of God and His Apostles. To say that what i follow is wrong, is to say that the Apostles were wrong, and that Our Savior was wrong. I just can’t do that. Amen.
[/quote]

Go back to pg. 36 and read my post on the apostasy, or as some bibles say, the Great falling away. Mert seems to think this is nothing great or important but the scriptures indicate otherwise. You’ll see why having a church that traces itself all the way back inadvertantly admits why it can’t be true.

Unlike the Jewish religious leaders, who clung to the traditions of their forefathers,(just like Orthodoxy does now to its’ forefathers after the apostles) most Jewish Christians rejoiced when they received this remarkable new understanding of God’s purpose respecting the people of the nations,(now non-Jews were acceptable to become God’s true servants as national distinction became irrelevant, Acts 10:34,35) even though accepting it required a change of viewpoint regarding Gentiles in general. Jehovah blessed their humble spirit, and ‘the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.’ Acts 15:31; 16:5.

Spiritual light continued to shine throughout the first century. But Jehovah did not reveal every aspect of his purposes to the early Christians. The apostle Paul told first-century fellow believers: “At present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror.” (1 Corinthians 13:12) Such a mirror did not have the best reflective surface. At first, then, comprehension of spiritual light would be limited. After the death of the apostles, the light grew dim for a while(the apostasy), but in recent times Scriptural knowledge has become abundant according to Daniel 12:4: “And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant.” The Amplified Bible has interesting wording also: “But you, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the Book until the time of the end. [Then] many shall run to and fro and search anxiously [through the Book], and knowledge [of God’s purposes as revealed by His prophets] shall be increased and become great.”

930

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
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.

The Savior shows that there will also be a resurrection, not such a resurrection of the flesh as they mistakenly imagine, but one more divine and more spiritual. Why then are you deluded, not knowing either the Scriptures or the power of God? For if you knew the Scriptures, you would understand that God is not God of the dead but of the living. If you knew the power of God, you would know that for God all things are possible, so that He can make men to live as angels. See the Lord’s wisdom! By using Moses they were intent on overturning the doctrine of the resurrection, but He, also by using Moses, convinces them, quoting, “I am the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.” What Christ means is this: God is not the God of that which is not, but of that which exists and is. For God did not say, “I was,” but “I am.” Even though they had died, they live in hope of the ressurection. But you may ask, “How is it, then, that He says in another place that He is Lord of both the dead and the living?” Learn, then, that “the dead” means, in that passage, those who have died but who shall live again. Here the Lord says, in opposing the heresy of the Sadducees who teach that there is no immortal soul but that it altogether perishes, that He is not God of the dead, that is, of those who appear to us to have utterly perished, but of the living, that is, of those who have an immortal soul and will be resurrected, though they are dead now.

from the Blessed Theophylact, born around 1055 AD

You don’t think this is absolutely PACKED with inconsistencies?

First off, you don’t have to resurrect something that never died. That’s what ‘immortal’ means, it can’t die. Where would a resurrection fit in if some ‘soul’ part of a being just kept living and went somewhere else? Now if the flesh is the mortal part that dies and the soul doesn’t then he had to be referring to a resurrection of the flesh contrary to what this writer you have quoted said.[/quote]

True flesh, not fallen flesh. Again, your typology is maldeveloped. To be fair, though, Basil says that Christ’s death and resurrection made a path for all flesh (sarx) to the resurrection.

The flesh dies, the body (which is the soul) went to death, the place that we inherited because of the curse of sin. Christ’s death and resurrection broke this curse, or “ransomed” us. Now, all men and women are reserved glorified flesh if they can wear it.

Be careful with the terms body, mind, soul, heart, spirit, flesh etc. Both Greek and Hebrew archtypal patterns appear in different parts of the bible AND have painted our current definitions of these terms. The mind is the soul, the body is in the mind and the mind is in the body. The spirit is the life force. I know you can’t understand how three things can be one. I feel sorry for you.

[quote]
“Even though they had died, they live in hope of the ressurection.” How does one live in hope of living again when they’re dead? Sounds rather convoluted.

“…those who have an immortal soul and will be resurrected, though they are dead now.” More of the same non-sensical jibberish. Ummm…thought they had an immortal soul, so how are they dead?

And the writer says the Sadducees were teaching no immortal soul, but they were not, they were denying the resurrection. The writer somehow decides to make them one and the same when they certainly are not.

Ultimately this leaves a question: What would happen to someone with an immortal soul who was not resurrected? Stay dead thought immortal?[/quote]

It would be unconscious.

931

The great Apostasy that you describe, in my opinion is simply some modern groups’ post hoc justification/interpretation of these verses in the early 1900s when historical evidence was confirming complete lines of apostolic succession in Rome, Jerusalem and other churches. Other evidence such as the Church of India claiming with strong historical support that Thomas taught them the doctrine of the trinity scared some groups into, as you put it

“searching to and fro”

for some verse to overemphasize and pervert to make the apostolic succession not important.

932

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
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.

The Savior shows that there will also be a resurrection, not such a resurrection of the flesh as they mistakenly imagine, but one more divine and more spiritual. Why then are you deluded, not knowing either the Scriptures or the power of God? For if you knew the Scriptures, you would understand that God is not God of the dead but of the living. If you knew the power of God, you would know that for God all things are possible, so that He can make men to live as angels. See the Lord’s wisdom! By using Moses they were intent on overturning the doctrine of the resurrection, but He, also by using Moses, convinces them, quoting, “I am the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.” What Christ means is this: God is not the God of that which is not, but of that which exists and is. For God did not say, “I was,” but “I am.” Even though they had died, they live in hope of the ressurection. But you may ask, “How is it, then, that He says in another place that He is Lord of both the dead and the living?” Learn, then, that “the dead” means, in that passage, those who have died but who shall live again. Here the Lord says, in opposing the heresy of the Sadducees who teach that there is no immortal soul but that it altogether perishes, that He is not God of the dead, that is, of those who appear to us to have utterly perished, but of the living, that is, of those who have an immortal soul and will be resurrected, though they are dead now.

from the Blessed Theophylact, born around 1055 AD

You don’t think this is absolutely PACKED with inconsistencies?

First off, you don’t have to resurrect something that never died. That’s what ‘immortal’ means, it can’t die. Where would a resurrection fit in if some ‘soul’ part of a being just kept living and went somewhere else? Now if the flesh is the mortal part that dies and the soul doesn’t then he had to be referring to a resurrection of the flesh contrary to what this writer you have quoted said.

True flesh, not fallen flesh. Again, your typology is maldeveloped.[/quote]

My typology is maldeveloped? Don’t strain yourself now, those are some big words. I think you got dropped on your ‘true flesh’ one too many times as a youngster and now it’s maldeveloped. Sheesh…[quote]

To be fair, though, Basil says that Christ’s death and resurrection made a path for all flesh (sarx) to the resurrection.[/quote]

Is that Basil Fawlty? I didn’t know John Cleese was Orthodox.[quote]

The flesh dies, the body (which is the soul) went to death, the place that we inherited because of the curse of sin. Christ’s death and resurrection broke this curse, or “ransomed” us. Now, all men and women are reserved glorified flesh if they can wear it.[/quote]

Does their reservation get given away if they’re late? ‘If they can wear it’ you say, I hope it’s the right color. Now just what color is ‘glorified flesh’, black? White? Yellow?[quote]

Be careful with the terms body, mind, soul, heart, spirit, flesh etc. Both Greek and Hebrew archtypal patterns appear in different parts of the bible AND have painted our current definitions of these terms. The mind is the soul, the body is in the mind and the mind is in the body. The spirit is the life force. I know you can’t understand how three things can be one. I feel sorry for you.[/quote]

Oh great Mert, why don’t you give us all an example from your vast collection of Greek and Hebrew knowledge where it is we must handle these terms like spent uranium rods?

And it sure is nice you feel sorry for someone cuz’ everyone’s feeling sorry for these responses your posturing.[quote]

“Even though they had died, they live in hope of the ressurection.” How does one live in hope of living again when they’re dead? Sounds rather convoluted.

“…those who have an immortal soul and will be resurrected, though they are dead now.” More of the same non-sensical jibberish. Ummm…thought they had an immortal soul, so how are they dead?

And the writer says the Sadducees were teaching no immortal soul, but they were not, they were denying the resurrection. The writer somehow decides to make them one and the same when they certainly are not.

Ultimately this leaves a question: What would happen to someone with an immortal soul who was not resurrected? Stay dead thought immortal?

It would be unconscious.

[/quote]
Unconscious? Eternally unconscious…kinda sounds like death. Guess you agree with me after all.

933

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
The great Apostasy that you describe, in my opinion[/quote]

Actually I didn’t ask for your opinion. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Show me scriptures or sit down till you can come up with some.[quote]

is simply some modern groups’ post hoc justification/interpretation of these verses in the early 1900s when historical evidence was confirming complete lines of apostolic succession in Rome, Jerusalem and other churches. [/quote]

Oh, I seeeeeee, modern groups have somehow had a scripture written down over 1800 yrs. before they needed it to disprove something not even found in the bible? Interesting…pffffft
And, newsflash, even with a solid, historical line of successors, it’s an irrelevant matter. They still got it wrong because they didn’t stick to what they were taught by the apostles or the scriptures. That’s fulfilled prophecy.[quote]

Other evidence such as the Church of India claiming with strong historical support that Thomas taught them the doctrine of the trinity scared some groups into, as you put it

“searching to and fro”

for some verse to overemphasize and pervert to make the apostolic succession not important.

[/quote]
Man, mert, I haven’t laughed like this in a while. Thanks for that. I see you’ve found yourself more ‘historical authentication’. We all know what you consider historical. If only the historians knew about this!

And you forget, I didn’t ‘put it’ at all, it’s called ‘Scripture’, you should look into it. It’s probably best, too, if you didn’t take it upon yourself to decide which scriptures are important and which are ‘overemphasized’. Hmmm, I wonder if Paul was overemphasizing this prophecy he wrote down when he called it the ‘GREAT falling away’. Mert you should really let him know he was being a wee bit dramatic. While you’re at it let the apostle John know too about all that ‘last hour’ and ‘antichrists’ talk. Now they’re just fearmongering.

934

Fishlips i clearly said there would be no debate. Funny thing is that your response sounded much like what the Blessed Theophylact wrote. then you go putting your hand in your mouth clearly not understanding and trying to go beyond the scope of the quote.

The Saduducees heresy was this: they believed neither in a resurrection of the dead, nor in the existence of an immortal spirit, nor in angels, and in general took a position opposite to that of the Pharisees.

Since they argue from the law of Moses, the Lord shows them that they are ignorant of the Scriptures. You do not understand, He says, of what kind of resurrection Scripture speaks. You think there will be then the same kind of life in the body as there is now; but it will not be so. Thus you are ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, but you are also ignorant of the power of God. Perhaps you are so busy staring at the complexity of things that you cannot see how a body once separated from its soul can be reunited to it. But by the power of God this is easily accomplished. For there will be a resurrection from the dead, but not to carnality, but to a divine and angelic kind of life. Since we will be incorruptible, and will remain forever the same, there will be no marriage. Now, because we are corruptible, there is marriage, so that, by joining togehter for the continuance of the human race, we do not become extinct. But then, just as the angels are without the need for marital procreation because they remain the same and never come to an end, so too the resurrected will remain undiminished in number, and there will be no need for marriage.

Consider this as well: “resurrection” means the rising of that which has fallen down. The immortal soul does not fall down, but the body does. Therefore the body will rise up again, when it is joined once more to the soul to which it is yoked.

Therefore “they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God.” Why? Because they are “children of the resurrection.” What He means is this: “I have said they are the children of God because nothing in their begetting is carnal-all is divine. Their birth into resurrection is preceded by neither intercourse, nor seed, nor womb, nor conception; it is God Who begets their resurrected bodies by ways known only to Him. Therefore, since it is God Who is at work in the resurrection, it is fitting that those who have been reborn of the resurrection should be called the children of God.”

Though the Patriarchs (Moses, Abraham, Issac, Jacob) are dead, they are alive in the hope of the resurrection, even as Adam had death while he lived. For it is said that Adam died spiritually and began to die physically at the very hour which he ate of the fruit.

Just as the first coming of the Lord was for the re-fashioning and rebirth of our souls, so the second coming will be for the rebirth of our bodies. Death came first to the souls of Adam and Eve when they disobeyed, and nine hundred years after their disobedience their bodies underwent death in physical actuality. Consequently, our souls are reborn and made better by the first coming of Christ, and our bodies, by the second coming.

quotes from the Blessed Theophylact

question on the resurrection can be found in Matthew 22.23-33, Mark 12.18-27, Luke 20.27-40

935

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips i clearly said there would be no debate. Funny thing is that your response sounded much like what the Blessed Theophylact wrote. then you go putting your hand in your mouth clearly not understanding and trying to go beyond the scope of the quote.[/quote]

Yeah I know there’s no debate but sometimes you can’t help yourself. It’s like trying not to say ‘baloney!’ when someone says running a marathon will build big legs. Just had to say something. And I’ve never heard about ‘putting your hand in your mouth’ before, I think that’s a pk original.[quote]

The Saduducees heresy was this: they believed neither in a resurrection of the dead, nor in the existence of an immortal spirit, nor in angels, and in general took a position opposite to that of the Pharisees.

Since they argue from the law of Moses, the Lord shows them that they are ignorant of the Scriptures. You do not understand, He says, of what kind of resurrection Scripture speaks. You think there will be then the same kind of life in the body as there is now; but it will not be so. Thus you are ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, but you are also ignorant of the power of God. Perhaps you are so busy staring at the complexity of things that you cannot see how a body once separated from its soul can be reunited to it. But by the power of God this is easily accomplished. For there will be a resurrection from the dead, but not to carnality, but to a divine and angelic kind of life.

Since we will be incorruptible, and will remain forever the same, there will be no marriage. Now, because we are corruptible, there is marriage, so that, by joining togehter for the continuance of the human race, we do not become extinct. But then, just as the angels are without the need for marital procreation because they remain the same and never come to an end, so too the resurrected will remain undiminished in number, and there will be no need for marriage.

Consider this as well: “resurrection” means the rising of that which has fallen down. The immortal soul does not fall down, but the body does. Therefore the body will rise up again, when it is joined once more to the soul to which it is yoked.

Therefore “they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God.” Why? Because they are “children of the resurrection.” What He means is this: “I have said they are the children of God because nothing in their begetting is carnal-all is divine. Their birth into resurrection is preceded by neither intercourse, nor seed, nor womb, nor conception; it is God Who begets their resurrected bodies by ways known only to Him. Therefore, since it is God Who is at work in the resurrection, it is fitting that those who have been reborn of the resurrection should be called the children of God.”

Though the Patriarchs (Moses, Abraham, Issac, Jacob) are dead, they are alive in the hope of the resurrection, even as Adam had death while he lived. For it is said that Adam died spiritually and began to die physically at the very hour which he ate of the fruit.

Just as the first coming of the Lord was for the re-fashioning and rebirth of our souls, so the second coming will be for the rebirth of our bodies. Death came first to the souls of Adam and Eve when they disobeyed, and nine hundred years after their disobedience their bodies underwent death in physical actuality. Consequently, our souls are reborn and made better by the first coming of Christ, and our bodies, by the second coming.

quotes from the Blessed Theophylact

question on the resurrection can be found in Matthew 22.23-33, Mark 12.18-27, Luke 20.27-40[/quote]

Anyway, if this actually makes sense to you, you can keep it. There’s just absolutely too much that offends the scriptures in this definition to even know where to start.

Don’t worry, I’m not expecting a reply on this matter as you said.

936

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
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.

You don’t worship Saints, you try to be like them. that should be the ultimate goal of every human.

You bring up an interesting point obout Jesus living a short lifetime and passing a long the truth to the Apostles who would then spread it along. so how do we know that what you believe was also believed by the Apostles and God. does not the Church which God mentions and was established by the Apostles mean anything as far as the spreading of the truth. The Apostles would die and would need a way to spread the truth.

laters pk
[/quote]

What I know and believe coincides with what was revealed to the apostles and which they went on to teach because the bible supports what I’ve said. That’s what I’ve been showing for as long as this thread has been alive. Which makes me think, when this thread dies, does it’s soul live on?

Yes the apostles would die and sought to strengthen and instruct the congregations as best they could, along with others, because they knew the prophesied ‘apostasy’ was coming. But they weren’t attempting to stop or overcome it for it was prophesied to come. True Christianity became virtually dormant for many centuries until the ‘time of the end’ as Daniel 12:4 says. That’s why the ‘Dark Ages’ is a good term for the intervening time period. The so-called ‘Christian’ religions which existed during that period were part of that apostasy, teaching ideas and traditions of men rather than bible truth.

Once God’s appointed time came, the ‘time of the end’, he caused truth to once again ‘become abundant’ and he’s having that truth declared throughout the earth ‘as a witness to all the nations before the end comes’.(Matt. 24:14)

937

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
What I know and believe coincides with what was revealed to the apostles and which they went on to teach because the bible supports what I’ve said. That’s what I’ve been showing for as long as this thread has been alive. Which makes me think, when this thread dies, does it’s soul live on?

Yes the apostles would die and sought to strengthen and instruct the congregations as best they could, along with others, because they knew the prophesied ‘apostasy’ was coming. But they weren’t attempting to stop or overcome it for it was prophesied to come. True Christianity became virtually dormant for many centuries until the ‘time of the end’ as Daniel 12:4 says. That’s why the ‘Dark Ages’ is a good term for the intervening time period. The so-called ‘Christian’ religions which existed during that period were part of that apostasy, teaching ideas and traditions of men rather than bible truth.

Once God’s appointed time came, the ‘time of the end’, he caused truth to once again ‘become abundant’ and he’s having that truth declared throughout the earth ‘as a witness to all the nations before the end comes’.(Matt. 24:14)[/quote]

please refresh my memory and tell me what church you are a member of. And please tell me how you trace your lineage and knowledge to God. I know that the Bishops at my Church can trace their ordination to Jesus Christ.

Christianity has never been dormant since Jesus Christ established it. The Holy Roman Empire was under Ottoman rule for most of the so called dark ages of western europe (which was a consequence of the franco latin church) but the Orthodox church was flourishing at that point in time. The Apostles were spreading across the lands into Russia and Asia. You need to go back and analyze history. Go through the Orthodox Christian Saints thread and you’ll learn a lot about what the future Apostles did. Oh and please don’t say that Orthodox people were being martyred left and right, thus showing a dormant state of Christianity. the martyrs just add to the glory of the true Church and God.

Every time you try defend a point you use a quote from the Orthodox Bible. How come you never quote any other of the fathers of your so called Christian church. Oh wait a minute, you are the father of your own church. that is so cool man, i really don’t envy you! laters pk

938

Ive got five bucks that says this thread makes to 1100 posts. Anybody? PM me if you want in.

939

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
What I know and believe coincides with what was revealed to the apostles and which they went on to teach because the bible supports what I’ve said. That’s what I’ve been showing for as long as this thread has been alive. Which makes me think, when this thread dies, does it’s soul live on?

Yes the apostles would die and sought to strengthen and instruct the congregations as best they could, along with others, because they knew the prophesied ‘apostasy’ was coming. But they weren’t attempting to stop or overcome it for it was prophesied to come. True Christianity became virtually dormant for many centuries until the ‘time of the end’ as Daniel 12:4 says. That’s why the ‘Dark Ages’ is a good term for the intervening time period. The so-called ‘Christian’ religions which existed during that period were part of that apostasy, teaching ideas and traditions of men rather than bible truth.

Once God’s appointed time came, the ‘time of the end’, he caused truth to once again ‘become abundant’ and he’s having that truth declared throughout the earth ‘as a witness to all the nations before the end comes’.(Matt. 24:14)

please refresh my memory and tell me what church you are a member of. And please tell me how you trace your lineage and knowledge to God. I know that the Bishops at my Church can trace their ordination to Jesus Christ.[/quote]

What is it about you guys that you unfailingly avoid dealing with the scriptures? What scares you so much about them? For people who claim to have oriented their lives around them, there’s a conspicuous absence of much in the way of scriptural references in any of your posts. Anyhoo, I don’t trace any lineage, it’s irrelevant. Mert already guessed what my faith is earlier as a Jehovah’s Witness. My ministry is normally face to face but I just couldn’t help myself in joining this thread.

So, again, the apostolic succession idea is non-biblical and doesn’t matter what tracing anyone claims to be able to do because of the scriptural prophecy of the ‘apostasy’ that Mert has studiously avoided really addressing and you have chosen not to address either.[quote]

Christianity has never been dormant since Jesus Christ established it. The Holy Roman Empire was under Ottoman rule for most of the so called dark ages of western europe (which was a consequence of the franco latin church) but the Orthodox church was flourishing at that point in time. The Apostles were spreading across the lands into Russia and Asia. You need to go back and analyze history. Go through the Orthodox Christian Saints thread and you’ll learn a lot about what the future Apostles did. Oh and please don’t say that Orthodox people were being martyred left and right, thus showing a dormant state of Christianity. the martyrs just add to the glory of the true Church and God.[/quote]

Oh, trust me, I’ve looked at the Orthodox Christian Saints thread. Gave me a good chuckle. My earlier reference to a ‘saint’ beaming ‘rice pilaf’ to his master by means of the spirit came from a posting made by you on that thread. You think that should be taken seriously? Gifts of the spirit were not granted for trivial matters. I’m not even going to worry about questioning which of those people really even existed as it’s known from historians’ expressions that many ‘saints’ and what occured in their lives were made-up by the church to shore up their adherents’ faith. Makes sense when you read the often fanciful and ‘soap opera’ like accounts of their lives. I’m sure many of them were also good, well-meaning people. Go back and look at the historical references in so many of my posts. They largely outnumber any history put forth by you and your associates. And many of these ‘saints’ simply kept propagating and adding to the deviant teachings that infiltrated Christianity especially after the last apostle, John, died. So TRUE Christianity laid dormant for many centuries while the apostasy unfolded. [quote]

Every time you try defend a point you use a quote from the Orthodox Bible. How come you never quote any other of the fathers of your so called Christian church. Oh wait a minute, you are the father of your own church. that is so cool man, i really don’t envy you! laters pk[/quote]

Now this ridiculous point continues to surface. It’s seems you believe the bible just wouldn’t exist without your church and the little council of Nicea. I’m sorry to bring these points to your attention but the bible is GOD’S WORD not the Orthodox Church’s, and history shows the bible, in it’s present state, was already recognized long before that council.

I don’t quote ‘church fathers’ because it’s the bible that counts. If what some ‘church father’ says contradicts scripture it’s valueless. You really should recognize how much you’d rather quote ‘church fathers’ and their opinions than actual scripture. Stick to the bible. The scriptures I quoted before about the Beroeans checking scripture rather than just believing what Paul told them is the way it should be.

940

Thank God for pookie, an island of logic in a sea of blind faith.

I read quite a lot of this thread and it is all quite humurous. My religion is better than yours blah blah blah. If there is a God and he is omniscient and onipotent and can only show love and not cause pain, then why would he only offer salvation to the few who choose to follow the one ‘true’ faith. Why would he allow most of the world to be ‘damned’ for simply following their religion or views? If there is one truth, you think its yours don’t you? Boy I will love to see the look on your face when you die and find out there’s no God. Oh wait, you’ll be dead.

I find it interesting that you worship at the feet of possibly the most evil fictional being ever created without questioning for a second your faith in him. A being who killed literally millions of people (this is directly I am not talking about any indirect Tsunami related deaths), including children, whole towns full of innocent people. I could go on and on but I won’t because I think I made my point and you will understand it. Hopefully be able to refute it with some hard evidence.

Does anyone here really believe in creationism? Since you base your life on the bible an all.

941

What would Jesus do?

http://www.local10.com/news/4633459/detail.html

Monk, Nuns Indicted In Nun’s Apparent Crucifixion
Nun Died Bound To Cross With Towel Stuffed In Mouth

POSTED: 9:30 am EDT June 21, 2005

BUCHAREST, Romania – A Romanian Orthodox monk has been indicted in the death of a 23-year-old nun in an apparent exorcism in which she was allegedly bound to a cross, had a towel stuffed into her mouth and left without food for three days.

Four nuns also were indicted Sunday in connection with the death of Maricica Irina Cornici of the Holy Trinity convent in northeast Romania. The prosecutor said Monday authorities were awaiting the results of a second autopsy before deciding how to proceed.

Police said Cornici died Wednesday, three days after she was left in a cold room, without any food. She was bound to the cross, with the towel stuffed in her mouth to stop her from uttering any sounds, authorities said.

A medical examiner’s report based on an autopsy concluded the nun died due to dehydration, exhaustion and lack of oxygen, state news agency Rompres reported.

A second autopsy is carried out when there is suspicion of foul play to minimize possible error.

Monk Daniel Petru Corogeanu and the four indicted nuns were charged with depriving a person of liberty resulting in death, but they have not been taken into custody pending results of the second autopsy, prosecutor Ovidiu Berindei told The Associated Press. If convicted, they could face 25 years in prison, said Berindei, prosecutor of Vaslui, a region in northeast Romania.

The monk said Sunday he was trying to “take the devil out of her,” N24 news television reported.

When asked whether the nun was mentally ill and in need of medical help instead of exorcism, he told the television station, “you can’t take the devil out of people with pills.”

The Romanian Orthodox Church has called the death “abominable” and has suspended Corogeanu pending an investigation. However, he refused to recognize the suspension and carried out a funeral service for the nun on Sunday. Cornici will be buried in a separate service in her home village.

Nuns yelled at a vicar who had come to suspend Corogeanu on Sunday, and scuffles broke out, N24 reported. Riot police intervened and order was restored, the television station reported. There were no injuries.