orthodox propaganda or reality?

[bushbush]

I have read some curious things on this forum so I have questions for christians of different affiliations.

generally something like this said by someone i shall not name:

-orthordox church is the "continuation (of old church) based on a political level"

-"There was the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and those who maintained it were Orthodox."

-"The sole purpose of the papal church was simply so that Charlamagne and his heirs could hijack the Roman Empire."


so basically, Orthodox church --- maintaining originality, never changed, correct belief. Catholic (and prusembably other christian affiliations who emerged later) --- evil doers changed everything in order to steal the glory of Rome and corrupted the original belief of Christ's church?

is this true?

[Del Valle]

For them, yes.

[Akrotatos]

The Pope was the originally just another Patriarch, being the most important cause Rome was the greatest city and Christian community in the world. That didn't make him head though. When WRE was lost, the Pope found himself actually leading the city without anybody over his head. Guess what? He liked that.
When the Gothic wars ended though, Italy lost any semblance of authority. The countryside was ruined, the cities were ruined and worse, the Lombards arrived. Those Lombards that were not pagan, were Arian Christians, even worse. Pope needed some security but Imperial protection seemed unlikely and would put him under the Emperor of Rome. And that was a big no-no for the smart Patriarch. Easier to call the successful and Christianised Franks for help, leading to the attrocity (to Byzantine eyes) of crowning a barbarian king, Emperor.
After that, the Pope was even luckier, for Charlesmagne died and his empire crumbled. Without central authority, the Church was THE authority on spiritual matters and this lead to the Pope's position as we know it.

[Elrond]

There were 5 patriarchs - one each for: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, the last three lost any significance after the the rise of Islam. Basically the Patriarch of Constantinople was the chief religious figure in the Byzantine Empire and the Pope became the Chief religious figure in Western Europe although it took longer for the Pope to become as prominent. Basically in 1054 there was a mainly personality / political argument that strained underlying problems and the Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other. That split then essentially lead to the division of Christendom between Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy.

Its true that the Patriarch of Constantinople was more influential within Christianity for a considerable amount of time although both have always been fairly important.

From the little I know about Orthodox Christianity its much more similar to Catholicism than Anglicanism or any kind of Protestantism.

[Carpathian Wolf]

There were 5 patriarchs - one each for: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, the last three lost any significance after the the rise of Islam. Basically the Patriarch of Constantinople was the chief religious figure in the Byzantine Empire and the Pope became the Chief religious figure in Western Europe although it took longer for the Pope to become as prominent. Basically in 1054 there was a mainly personality / political argument that strained underlying problems and the Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other. That split then essentially lead to the division of Christendom between Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy.

Its true that the Patriarch of Constantinople was more influential within Christianity for a considerable amount of time although both have always been fairly important.

From the little I know about Orthodox Christianity its much more similar to Catholicism than Anglicanism or any kind of Protestantism.

There are massive theological implication with the addition of the filioque for example which it was deemed by ALL Christanity to be a heresy in the 8th ecumenical council. Like wise the 3rd Ecumenical Council said it was illegal to change anything in the creed without another ecumenical council backing it up. We also have issues with purgatory, papal primacy (If Peter makes the pope boss of all Christianity because Peter was Bishop in Rome...then why not the same for Antioch where Peter was first Bishop before Rome? Double standard) and more recently papal infallibility.

[persianfan247]

There were 5 patriarchs - one each for: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, the last three lost any significance after the the rise of Islam. Basically the Patriarch of Constantinople was the chief religious figure in the Byzantine Empire and the Pope became the Chief religious figure in Western Europe although it took longer for the Pope to become as prominent. Basically in 1054 there was a mainly personality / political argument that strained underlying problems and the Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other. That split then essentially lead to the division of Christendom between Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy.

Its true that the Patriarch of Constantinople was more influential within Christianity for a considerable amount of time although both have always been fairly important.

From the little I know about Orthodox Christianity its much more similar to Catholicism than Anglicanism or any kind of Protestantism.

Also, if I remember correctly the Patriarch of Constantinople was subject to the Emperor, where as in the west the Holy Roman Emperor was theoretically subject to the Pope.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Also, if I remember correctly the Patriarch of Constantinople was subject to the Emperor, where as in the west the Holy Roman Emperor was theoretically subject to the Pope.

No the Patriarch of Constantinople was not subject to the Emperor. Saint Mark of Ephesus made this quite clear for example.

While I am a Catholic, I don't particularly like to say one religion is more correct than another. Having said that I have some information that may be usefull to this disscussion, and why many belive that the Catholic Church is the "true"(I do use this term loosely) form of Christianity.

On the first point concerning Peter...I don't really believe that Church rank (if any) would be set up on a latin pun. But if that is the case, what is true for Rome should be true for Antioch as well since Peter was Bishop of Antioch first.

Secondly Scripture is inspired and it is through the Holy Spirit that the bible was chosen during the Ecumenical Council. The vatican tends to put an emphasis on the church while the protestants put an emphasis on the bible. The Orthodox however maintain that both work together. I don't know how the vatican could claim to be the Church that put together the bible based on simple history and even geography.

[basics]

The church as it emerged into the outer world after Pentecost was before that primarily Jewish back to their beginnings and before that was indeed Gentile all the way back to Abel. During pre-Pentecostal times it was invisible in the sense that it was a closed shop to the Jew and only became visible at and after Pentecost when Gentiles were grafted in by way of being born again just as all before them.

So what makes the church of the living God? Faith and only faith, wrought by the blood shed at Calvary by Jesus Christ our Lord unto all and upon all them that believe. And how does one believe? " No man can come to the Father except through me and no man can come to me except the Father draws him." That is how one becomes part of the body of Christ. By the faith of Jesus Christ are you saved.

The question then is is that how the Orthodox present themselves? Is their claim based on the above or has it other ramifications? Well like Romanists and certain Protestants they believe that one is born again by water baptism while John the Baptist denies that when he says that by the Holy Ghost is one baptised into the body of Christ. To him water was but preparation. So here we have the first fundamental difficulty.

And then like Rome we have this Bishop thing, a postion made so that the disciples may get on with preaching the good news, a position of seeing to the needs of the new gathering so that each was content in their having. The next question is is that the position of what are called Patriarchs in the Orthodox system today, even when the schism with Rome took place? Therein lies the next fundamental difference because this was not the church at Pentecost.

There were no golden robes, certainly no iconic worship and no praying to saints and certainly no transubstantiation. Indeed the Council at Jerusalem forbad the drinking of blood, but then like the Catholics the Orthodox forget that it is to a Jewish vine that the Gentile believers are grafted onto. For some reason they think that the church began at Pentecost and not before making it a Gentile institution. That is another fundamental mistake.

So without going on any further and as Paul said this is no more than another gospel that is really no gospel at all and that being the case there can be no claim to originality with Pentecostal believers at all. Indeed the most abhorrent of all Orthodox claims is that only priests may interpret Scripture, similar to Rome, thus making null and void God's claim that the Gospel itself is His power to save.

[Darth Red]

On the first point concerning Peter...I don't really believe that Church rank (if any) would be set up on a latin pun.

Filioque? And the son?

But if that is the case, what is true for Rome should be true for Antioch as well since Peter was Bishop of Antioch first.

I belive because of the symbolisim of his martyrdom there,

Peter's coming to Rome and his martyrdom here are part of a very ancient tradition expressed in basic historical documents and archeological discoveries regarding devotion to Peter on the site of his tomb, which early on became a place of veneration. Among the written documents we must first of all recall Pope Clement's Letter to the Corinthians (ca. 89-97), where the Church of Rome is considered as the Church of blessed Peter and Paul, whose martyrdom during Nero's persecution is mentioned by the Pope (5, 1-7). In this regard it is interesting to underscore the reference of tradition to the two apostles associated in their martyrdom with this Church. The Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter; however, he can also be called the heir of Paul, the greatest representative of the early Church's missionary efforts and of the wealth of her charisms. The bishops of Rome have generally spoken, taught, defended Christ's truth, celebrated pontifical rites and blessed the faithful in the name of Peter and Paul, the "princes of the apostles," the olivae binae pietatis unicae (twofold branch of the one piety), as is sung in the hymn for their feast on June 29. The Fathers, the liturgy and iconography often depict this association in martyrdom and glory.

From what I understand, the Byzantine Emperor wanted the powers to appoint the Patriarchs of the church, and thought of himself an equal to the apostles.

One of the most tragic divisions within Christianity is the one between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. Both have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy, both celebrate the same sacraments, both believe almost exactly the same theology, and both proclaim the same faith in Christ. So, why the division? What caused the division?

Secondly Scripture is inspired and it is through the Holy Spirit that the bible was chosen during the Ecumenical Council. The vatican tends to put an emphasis on the church while the protestants put an emphasis on the bible. The Orthodox however maintain that both work together. I don't know how the vatican could claim to be the Church that put together the bible based on simple history and even geography.

Not so, recently one of Pope John Paul II goals was to mend the relationship between the Vatican and The Eastern Orthodox Church, calling them sister religions and all. Pope Benidict XVI seems to be continuing the aims of his predecessor...

[persianfan247]

No the Patriarch of Constantinople was not subject to the Emperor. Saint Mark of Ephesus made this quite clear for example. .

Im sure it mentions something like that in one of these books

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantium-Cent...1781475&sr=1-4

But Ive got to assume you know better.

[Darth Red]

While I am a Catholic, I don't particularly like to say one religion is more correct than another. Having said that I have some information that may be usefull to this disscussion, and why many belive that the Catholic Church is the "true"(I do use this term loosely) form of Christianity.

Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).

[Darth Red]

You make a lot of good points and tough arguments, Carpathian Wolf, that I do not have the years of experience or study to refute. I do lean on the Catholic encyclopedia for my arguments as a crutch because this isn't covered in Mass or Sunday School, which is really a shame, and don't have any higher, formal, Theological study.

I wasn't trying to use the Catholic to explain Orthodoxy however, more putting my own religion's feet to the fire, to find how we are supposed to explain these very questions that you pose. I also realize that I would be getting one sided information, but I was figuring you were coming fully armed with strong counter arguments of your own, which you have.

I would say I did need a certain amount knowlage to navigate and find the correct answers within the encyclopedia, and to bring something that I thought would be pertinant to the disscussion. If anything I thank you for the discussion and free education I got out of it because normaly I probably wouldn't have gone out of my way to take a look at this part of history within Christianity. Thanks for the references on Eastern Orthodox. It may take a little bit, but I will return when I have some questions or discripancys

I gave the +rep for all the reasons I listed above and for overall good discussion.

[Non-Playable]

No man has ever been to heaven. They only pre-taste it.

[Carpathian Wolf]

OK, let's return to Lazarus and the rich man cast into Hell, just for the moment so that my lies can be proved otherwise. Who was telling the story? And from where was He telling the story? For the reader it was Jesus Christ and He was talking whilst here on earth. Being in the flesh He related Lazarus as being in the bosom of Abraham because He at that time wasn't in heaven.

But not only was Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, he had been carried there by angels. Were they evil angels or angels of the Lord? Perhaps that Jesus never spoke much of evil angels, if at all, rather calling them evil spirits or demons, I think it is safe to assume that the angels in particular were His.

And as the story unravels we learn that the gulf between where the rich man was and where Lazarus was was unbridgeable, the gulf being so wide. So according to you Abraham, the angels and Lazarus are in Hell, but a different Hell from that of the rich man. I don't think so and neither should you. It is obvious that Jesus is relating one in heaven and one in Hell.

As Abraham is recorded the rich man had his whilst on earth and now Lazarus was having a greater thing being comforted, note that word, for there is but one Comforter, in heaven alongside Abraham who like all those listed in Hebrews are in heaven. And the last words of the rich man were that if someone from where Abraham was would go warn his brothers they would repent.

And Abraham replied, that if they cannot understand Moses and the prophets to believe neither will they believe on One who will rise from the dead. You say that these men of old are in Hell awaiting judgement, the Scriptures tell otherwise because in the story just told it would appear there must be two Hells and we all know there isn't. One was heaven and the other Hell the gap between them insurmountable.

And if the gap is unbridgeable, it is in the words of Abraham unpassable the one from the other in any direction, no judgement is going to change that. That in your eyes, and, your system, means that all them of faith before Jesus' time could never be saved making the words justified, sanctified, righteous and perfect null and void for them, is totally the opposite of the book to the Hebrews.

See the problem is that you are talking about hell and I am talking about hades. Two different things. If you would get off your soap box and actually listen to what people are saying to you rather than just waiting your turn to speak again you'd realize this.

The notion that people went to heaven or hell already is saying that the judgement has already happened.

There is nothing wrong with graven images kinda makes God look foolish especially when it is of the second most important commandment which by the Law still stands thus why we who are Christian must fulfill it as the Lord Jesus Christ fulfills it. To try to make the exceptional pattern that God gave to men for making His Holy places into an excuse to do what you want without any patterns from God at all is idolatry.

You don't care whether that which God gave to Moses to write down is exact or not. So every word that comes from out of the mouth of God is not important to you, you just don't care. Well you should care because in those words lies the truth of why we are here at all and to put it better that He donates the exact procedure concerning the timing of life.

I don't think God is the foolish one here basic. I already told you that the problem with graven imagies is WORSHIPING THEM. Obviously God doesn't have a problem with graven images in and by themselves, but the worship of them is the problem.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Icons

I think it is very civilised for a man who has experienced the wonders of conversion to witness to others what that entailed, to also believe that God has done this marvelous thing. In Christianity this is called witnessing, expressing the fruit of the Spirit in its fulness, after all that is what we were commanded to do unto the whole world. But figuratively if the vine has no fruit then none can enjoy it can they?

I make no excuses for telling it as it is. The Gospel is an offense especially to those that are religious because in their religiosity they have nothing to relate as regards the Lord Jesus Christ in their lives other than what they have been taught by others. Indeed they often seem as though the name of Jesus would make them choke were they to utter it. Replies usually built on another's work is about as best as they can muster.

My cause, as you call it, is not for personal gain for if all that I say is not for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ then you tell me what is? You see I am not ashamed either of the Gospel because I once never knew it. But when it was revealed to me that I too had been washed by that wonderful blood it became the only driving force in my life. To tell of the wonders of God is but a privilege so where is the lie in that?

I remember you once scoffing that the Lord spoke with me but as any Christian born again of the Holy Ghost can affirm that is normal to the saved. But then that is your form of the name Christianity. That is your system, but I'm afraid it is not God's. And if you think I enjoy telling you these things you are quite wrong. What I write is for your benefit, nothing else. I do not condemn anyone anywhere. The Law of Moses does that adequately. My job is to get you past that Law wherein there is no condemnation.

When you dare place yourself in God's judgement seat and say i'll go to hell and you'll go to heaven, you are doing nothing for God but for yourself. It's vanity, and that is all you are sharing with any of us here. No thank you.

[basics]

" The notion that people went to heaven or hell already is saying that the judgement has already happened."

Carpathian Wolf,

From the beginning of time righteous men have been going at death to heaven by the very same faith that all with the same faith go to heaven, even though in their time Jesus was but a promise. What made them righteous was that they believed the promise. Who gave them that promise? Why God Himself is the answer. And because they believed they were accounted righteous before God.

So what does that mean? Is it just a saying with no power behind it or is it real that they really are righteous, the meaning of which in the Hebrew is made perfect, sanctified and justified? I say it is just what God intended in the literal sense that these men and women were perfected by faith so that each one is now in heaven.

That when Jesus Christ hung on that cross as their substitute is no less a fact that He hung there as mine or for anyone else who will still have to be brought to Christ Jesus, even though they are not yet born. The sacrifice was once only delivered but it covers all men from all aspects of time. The one washed and the other not, so judgement was passed on that day, in those hours at the cross by that broken body.

Why there is a final judgement is because not only have men to be judged but all creation with them. The important thing here is that it is seen, none having any get-out clause. The two entities have to be assembled together so that judgement is seen to be done according to the Scriptures. That is why the many who claim to have worked in His name, the tares, are seen for what they were and what their gospel was, poison, death.

The Lord Jesus Christ says that He never knew them. They had never been born again even though they thought their methods made them so. But He never knew them and there will be much crying and gnashing of teeth. Now we know that the gate was narrow and therefore few getting through so them that are cast away are greater than them within. This has always been the case from the beginning of time.

So all them born again yet dead in Christ Jesus are in heaven already Jew and Gentile grafted onto the vine that is Jesus Christ our Lord. And right up until the very eve of the last day they will continue to go to heaven because they have been perfected through the blood of Jesus Christ. The unbeliever, the non-born again, will therefore at death go into Hell as they have also always done to await the final judgement which the wrath of God will pour out on them.

You may not believe it but it was all done at the cross. That was the day when every man and woman ever that was and ever to be was separated according to the will of God. The shed blood was the surety of separation and the names in the book of life confirmation. The promise to Abraham was confirmed by action on that day so that one could say I am a child of God and nothing in all creation whether in heaven or earth can break it.

[Carpathian Wolf]

This is why you can't have a conversation with basics. He doesn't listen to what you think, he tells you what you think. And then his argument boils down to, "I'm going to Heaven and you're going to Hell, so you must be wrong."

Reminds me a bit of the "to kill an infidel is not murder, but the path to heaven" guy from Kingdom of Heaven. Same glossy eyed expression. But yes in his mind we're going to hell.

Like I said before, Protestantism convinced me of Orthodoxy.

Carpathian Wolf,

From the beginning of time righteous men have been going at death to heaven by the very same faith that all with the same faith go to heaven, even though in their time Jesus was but a promise. What made them righteous was that they believed the promise. Who gave them that promise? Why God Himself is the answer. And because they believed they were accounted righteous before God.

So what does that mean? Is it just a saying with no power behind it or is it real that they really are righteous, the meaning of which in the Hebrew is made perfect, sanctified and justified? I say it is just what God intended in the literal sense that these men and women were perfected by faith so that each one is now in heaven.

That when Jesus Christ hung on that cross as their substitute is no less a fact that He hung there as mine or for anyone else who will still have to be brought to Christ Jesus, even though they are not yet born. The sacrifice was once only delivered but it covers all men from all aspects of time. The one washed and the other not, so judgement was passed on that day, in those hours at the cross by that broken body.

Why there is a final judgement is because not only have men to be judged but all creation with them. The important thing here is that it is seen, none having any get-out clause. The two entities have to be assembled together so that judgement is seen to be done according to the Scriptures. That is why the many who claim to have worked in His name, the tares, are seen for what they were and what their gospel was, poison, death.

The Lord Jesus Christ says that He never knew them. They had never been born again even though they thought their methods made them so. But He never knew them and there will be much crying and gnashing of teeth. Now we know that the gate was narrow and therefore few getting through so them that are cast away are greater than them within. This has always been the case from the beginning of time.

So all them born again yet dead in Christ Jesus are in heaven already Jew and Gentile grafted onto the vine that is Jesus Christ our Lord. And right up until the very eve of the last day they will continue to go to heaven because they have been perfected through the blood of Jesus Christ. The unbeliever, the non-born again, will therefore at death go into Hell as they have also always done to await the final judgement which the wrath of God will pour out on them.

You may not believe it but it was all done at the cross. That was the day when every man and woman ever that was and ever to be was separated according to the will of God. The shed blood was the surety of separation and the names in the book of life confirmation. The promise to Abraham was confirmed by action on that day so that one could say I am a child of God and nothing in all creation whether in heaven or earth can break it.

Your notion of salvation renders Christ redundant, this is heresy and anathema.

The idea that you can place yourself in place of God and judge me to hell and yourself to heaven is anathema.

You have no root to speak from. Your sources are simply your opinion based on an incomplete bible. From what position do you speak to me from? What does this mean, that you can contradict yourself and be proven wrong but you simply repeat "But God told me so." This is the arguments of mad men and mean nothing to me. All you do is rant in your "grandiose" manner making silly proclimations.

You may be righteous and just, as an Orthodox I can not afford the luxury of arrogance condemning others to hell, but what you say has nothing to stand on, no Tradition, no History, no Scripture, no God. It's simply basics and the gospel according to basics. You've made yourself a little paper pope hat with which you consider yourself infallible enough to decree who is going to hell.

[Carpathian Wolf]

It's always nice to have an intelligent warm discussion with someone. It's often too rare. Concerning the 'one sidedness' of it all, of course each one will have their perspective. Where it is important however is that one account of the Council of Florence simply says "they all agree" while the other account shows in great the detail the before and after, the who and the why which I think paints a clearer picture.

[Zenith Darksea]

They constitute what makes the body of Christ them and us being the Temple. So try telling me once more that these saints are not saints? That they are not the church of the living God? Then try explaining that to God.

They are saints of the Church now, but they weren't then, since it was Christ who created the Church as part of the New Covenant. They were holy men, of course, but they couldn't actually be sanctified until Christ's resurrection, just like everyone else.

Back on topic, you may well ask whether the Orthodox claims are propaganda. They are certainly strong and forceful claims - the word 'Orthodox' in Greek means 'right-believing'. Of course Catholics and Protestants (like our friend basics above) would disagree (although I do know of Protestants who actually agree with the Orthodox claims but don't feel the need to fully convert like I did). You are best to read up a bit on the history and theology that is concerned. When I was still a Protestant I became interested in the history of the Orthodox Church and, as I read more and more, I became more and more convinced that the Orthodox claims are not propaganda but are actually backed up by discernable facts and evidence. As a result I decided to convert.

[basics]

" They are saints of the Church now, but they weren't then, since it was Christ who created the Church as part of the New Covenant. They were holy men, of course, but they couldn't actually be sanctified until Christ's resurrection, just like everyone else."

Hello Zenith Darksea,

Long time no hear, trust you are well and up for the fight?

Nope, you have got the wrong end of the stick. They were all righteous before God and that by faith. There being only one faith that means they had what all Christians get at conversion, being made righteous, is the gift of faith. For what? To believe that Jesus Christ would come to die on their behalf and since it was but a once only affair they were washed then to confirm that they indeed were righteous.

But let's put it another way, you cannot be a sinner long dead since you must be born again in this life if ever you are to see heaven. And you only will do that if you are born again, made righteous before God, sanctified, justified, they all have the same Hebrew root and mean the same thing.

And since the great sacrifice was made at Calvary once only does that mean that those of the elect who are not yet born therefore cannot be saved by the same faith, there only being one, that them of old times were? That would be a ridiculous proposition.

Sanctification is not about the resurrection at all. The resurrection is about making legal the promises given to Abraham concerning all them that are and will be sanctified. Blood is the weapon of cleansing away sin, nothing else. Christ's returning to glory was confirmation that according to the promise we too will rise to glory on the day of our own calling.

By faith are we saved, the faith of Jesus Christ that is given unto all and is upon all them that believe. Unto all as they are called or drawn in by the Father to reveal the Son and upon all on whom that calling is ever made, Old and New Testament believers alike. It is written that it is from faith to faith, so what does that mean?

It means that when one is born again, made righteous, sanctified, the faith of Christ Jesus is gifted to each and every one that believes by faith. In other words unless we know and feel what Christ did on our behalf we cannot have faith. There being only one faith and it being His and His alone. So these men and women of old according to Scripture had faith, His faith just as we who are born again do.

The New Covenant in His blood therefore makes perfectly legal what the Law cannot do, because the Law only condemns. That He rose again was the trigger if you like that brought about the change to the Law so that the Law still couldn't find any fault in them that are born again. Indeed did Diablos not stand before the throne accusing people of their right to be there?

He wasn't accusing them on earth for most of them were sinners. But as each and every one entered heaven they were the ones he accused including all the Old Testament saints who by the way couldn't be saints unless they were spotless, indeed couldn't be in heaven without a Saviour, that man Jesus Christ. By one act He, God, hath perfected forever, all them that believe.

We know that Moses and Abel and all the others already mentioned are in heaven and there is only one way they could have got there, whether before the Lord Jesus Christ or after, and that was by His faith, them of old believing that He would accomplish that which He did, and because they believed God accounted it as being righteous before Him.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Basics is trying to argue from the point of view that the church is all invisible and there is no real definition of it. He is leaving it vague because protestantism doesn't have the depth of history. There are no roots beyond the reformation. This obvious issue is resolved simply by changing the definition of what Church is. And that is the goal of the argument, more so than trying to show that the Church existed before Christ.