The New Testament Ekklesia vs. the Christian Religion

[hellas1]

Hi all,

It has struck me as troublesome as to why so many educated people on this forum are essentially saying: Christianity is stupid, weird or downright idiotic.

I read statements that are made on this forum which come from a place of people only seeing what they want to see or immediately see and which actually might also be due to peoples cultural conditioning and generalizing:
Ex. Northeastern Americans are cold & staunch protestants while the Southeast is composed of strict Fundamentalist "Bible Bashers."

I assert that being open minded about the existence of God, first, and that HE can reveal the truth about Jesus & the real meaning of Christianity and that also by researching the development of the New Testament Ekklesia to the formation of the "Modern Christian Religion."

Furthermore, I also want to be clear as to what the bible says first & foremost versus what a supposed "apostolic tradition" or any denomination says:

Facts:
- Jesus is the Head (Greek: Ke-fa-lee) or Leader, of the Ekklesia, not a person or group of people called "Popes, Patriarchs, Pastors/Priests or Board members"

As an interesting fact: The modern "Priest/Pastor" is now charged with doing such things as presiding over funerals, giving the Sunday Sermon, Marrying people, giving the "elements" of bread & wine, etc. which are all practices that arose in the passing of time, the absorption of Pagan elements, and some legitimate traditions.

- No Pope, Patriarch or "Priest/Pastor" Elders (Greek: Ge-ree or "Old men") who gave Oversight (Greek:Episcopos) existed along with deacons (Greek: Diaconee) Apostles, Prophets, Pastors (Greek; Pi-men), Evangelists or Literally "Those engaged with talking about Good News", and Teachers

- No "Churches" Christians met at peoples homes

- No "Sunday Sermons" These came about due to ex-Roman orators coming to know & love Jesus and bringing in their conditioning into the Ekklesia

- No pulpits The pulpit can be traced back to the Roman podium and also the focal point in a synagogue in Jesus's day called the "seat of Moses" which was either a stone or wooden chair that the reader of the Torah sat on

- No statues of saints or icons of saints. Both are later developments revolving around Pagan practice (Statues of Gods & Paintings of various gods also, albeit infrequently in the case of painting)

- All Christians contributed in sharing a teaching or encouraging one another or in singing praises to God, etc.

- No celebration of Christmas or Easter. Both "Holidays or Holy Days" are moored in Paganism, Christmas deriving from the worship of Sol Invictus (Latin: The Unconquerable Sun) & Saturn also, while Easter with its bunnies & Easter wabbits (Yes, I spelled it wrong ON purpose) has to with Pagan fertility symbols and the "rebirth of the God" annually, typically in the form of the sun, again.

- No Christian seminaries existed. People were students of Jesus, while the Apostles, Prophets, Pastors (Or Shepherds in Greek), Evangelists and Teachers equipped people to talk about & share Jesus.

As a brief synopsis, we can see the following:

The Ekklesia or the Early Church is minimally reflected in modern denominationalism.

Comments? Questions?
hellas1

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Which is downright idiotic if you reduce everything down to this. Legitimate Christianity is descended not only from Scripture, but from legitimate Patristic tradition spanning centuries across, from Paul to the Byzantines. Anyone trying to put Christianity back to its 1st Century AD roots will be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Ever since the Gnostic heresy arouse, nay even before, there was a strict effort by Church fathers to maintain Orthodoxy, especially in Scriptural matters. So we can say that although there were many later additions, the core Scriptural teaching traceable back to the time of Jesus remained intact.

[hellas1]

@Louis XI,

No sir, this is not "downright idiotic" it is downright FACT, historical FACT versus what the New Testament says and not the accumulation of later generations.

Furthermore, the "legitimate Patristic tradition spanning centuries across, from Paul to the Byzantines" other than Paul and perhaps a few believers who were students of the Apostles such as Papias, does not necessarily reflect the New Testament weight of authority via the Holy Spirit. Period.

We should not simply believe that "Patristic tradition" is revelation from the Holy Spirit, although there is MUCH wisdom therein!

Jesus said that the "Spirit of truth would lead us into ALL the truth."
Jesus also said that "I am the way, the truth and the life."

If it ain't leading us to Jesus, the way, truth and life, one should discard one's cherished belief set, no matter how "Hallow-ed" it be.
hellas1

[Invictus XII]

@Louis XI,

No sir, this is not "downright idiotic" it is downright FACT, historical FACT versus what the New Testament says and not the accumulation of later generations.

Too bad religion is not based on facts, but faith and love. Not records, facts, evidence or proof. All those things are irrelevant in religion compared to faith and love.

[Squiggle]

Too bad religion is not based on facts, but faith and love. Not records, facts, evidence or proof. All those things are irrelevant in religion compared to faith and love.

Pretty sure the faith and love of religion is predicated on its rationality, and the objective proof of it having a basis in truth...

Lets put it this way, if Jesus' resurrection didnt at least contend as a plausible historical explanation for the events said to have taken place after Jesus' death, then Christianity would entirely collapse. Christianity is a religion based on historical claims, and therefore facts. God has logical implications in reality, that we should understand and appreciate. If you abandon apologetics, rationality and history you abandon anything but nonsensical feel good emotions. And then we've entered the realm of delusion, which the vast majority of people are not willing to follow [look to Europe].

[hellas1]

@Marshal Beale,

Who said that the Old Testament (Tanakh) & New Testaments were NOT based on fact but "only" faith?

Excuse me, however, I'm talking about real people, real events in real time (albeit ancient now.)

Ex. People:
Pontius Pilate
Felix (Governor)
Porcius Festus
Herod the Great

Locations:
Athens
Corinth
Ephesus
Rome
Bithynia
Berea

Events:
Worship centered around Diana (Ephesus)
The "meat market" in Corinth: (Pagan temple adjoined to meat market)
Pool with 5 porticoes in Jerusalem

Technical titles/terms:
Politarch
"First Man" of the Island of Malta (First man meant governor)
Ethnarch
"Temple sweeper" of the Temple of Diana/Artemis (Denoting a position of honor & trust)

Furthermore,
As I observe the New Testament it lacks the fancifulness found in other texts such as the Mahabharata or The Jakata stories of Buddhism, etc. The New Testament is devoid of bizarreness and credulity.

Lastly, The greatest historical fact & evidence is the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.
The Apostle Paul said that: "Messiah appeared to over 500 people at one time" after his death and "If Messiah hasn't been raised from the dead, then we are of all men most to be pitied."

I'm sorry but biblical Christianity is not the Catholic nor Orthodox nor Protestant Churches.
It stands on its own and is not an institution but a living organism.

hellas1

[Squiggle]

Which is downright idiotic if you reduce everything down to this. Legitimate Christianity is descended not only from Scripture, but from legitimate Patristic tradition spanning centuries across, from Paul to the Byzantines. Anyone trying to put Christianity back to its 1st Century AD roots will be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Ever since the Gnostic heresy arouse, nay even before, there was a strict effort by Church fathers to maintain Orthodoxy, especially in Scriptural matters. So we can say that although there were many later additions, the core Scriptural teaching traceable back to the time of Jesus remained intact.

This is blatant nonsense. You can trace the evolution of the pope's role, his influence in dogma and theology, and the diversion between RC and Orthodoxy in history. The reality is, blatantly the RC and the Orthodox have differed from the first Christians. Protestantism is an attempt, a successful attempt I'd say, at stripping away all the useless superstition and anti biblical traditions/hierarchies that arose in the preceding centuries. And who are you to say legitimate Christian anything? Not only are you not a Christian, you taunt Christianity every time you post on it.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

That's nice, but do you actually have an alternative path towards Christianity that doesn't involve a tradition handed since the early days? You know the Church Fathers didn't really pull things off their arse, don't you? There is no other way.

Given that the early Church fathers were indeed well aware of a practice handed over through generations since Christ, the additions over the centuries never really violated the paradigm of Orthodoxy neither in their eyes, nor in the eyes of fellow theologians. Heresy used to be a very serious accusation and every patristic writing went through rigid close scrutiny before being deemed appropriate for that status and category - I know this, because the writings of St. Gregory Palamas, my particular field of study today, were first rejected, and then underwent quite a severe analysis before his 1368 glorification.

So what men like Augustine say (if you're Catholic) or the many early Saints add up on Christian doctrine does not constitute bidah in the strict sense of the word, but a necessary complement following Orthodox lines. Contrarily to what you would expect, "Orthodoxy" does not denote rigidity and immutability, but it dispenses with anything that is new just for the sake of being "innovative", which is anathema and heresy.

[SigniferOne]

That's nice, but do you actually have an alternative path towards Christianity that doesn't involve a tradition handed since the early days?

Yes the one that's based on the bible, rather than treating men like the bible?

You know the Church Fathers didn't really pull things off their arse, don't you?

They didnt, but it was just their opinions. Their views are not binding, one can disagreee with them, etc. They were just men, not infallible in any way.

"Orthodoxy" does not denote rigidity and immutability, but it dispenses with anything that is new just for the sake of being "innovative", which is anathema and heresy.

Nobody praises the new just for the sake of being innovative.

Legitimate Christianity is descended not only from Scripture, but from legitimate Patristic tradition

According to whom?

Christianity is what people say it is? No thanks to that.

Ever since the Gnostic heresy arouse, nay even before, there was a strict effort by Church fathers to maintain Orthodoxy, especially in Scriptural matters.

Yes all great schools od Christianity had strict efforts to maintain orthodoxy, so what? The Calvinists were on the great lookout for any innovations when they held sway, the Methodists did, the Anglicans, so what?

So we can say that although there were many later additions, the core Scriptural teaching traceable back to the time of Jesus remained intact.

There is not one scintilla of truth in this statement.

Medieval Christianity had almost nothing in common with the original Christianity.

I know this, because the writings of St. Gregory Palamas, my particular field of study

Why don't you study whether Christianity its true and that maybe you should adopt it instead?

[basics]

" No "Churches" Christians met at peoples homes."

hellas 1,

I hope I am not misreading this because the earliest churches being predominantly Jewish met at the synagogue, that being changed as more and more Gentiles became Christian. The obvious places of meeting could only have been homes where the owners were believers unless of course they had the finances to hire other buildings simply because there were no designated churches as of yet in building terms.

" No one denies that the earliest Christians met in houses. The book of Acts regularly describes Christian assemblies taking place in peoples' homes (Acts 2:42; 5:42; 20:20). Church meetings are recorded in the homes of John's mother (Acts 12:12), Lydia (Acts 16:40), Aquilla and Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19), Gaius (Rom. 16:23), Nympha (Col. 4:15), and Philemon (Philem. 2). So why?

Initially the word "synagogue" or "gathering" referred to the Jews who met together, then later to the buildings in which they met. The first synagogue buildings were renovated homes which had been dedicated for the purpose. Similarly, the "church" or "called out ones" met originally in the intimate settings of the members' homes. By the third century, houses were being donated as "churches" to accommodate the growing congregations. This can be seen from the excavation of a house-turned-church building at Dura-Europos and in the earliest literary description of a house being consecrated as a "church" (Recognitions, X.71). "

[hellas1]

Hi all,

My purpose in posting this is NOT to disrespect the believers, REAL Christians who were/are in denominations.

Rather, my purpose is to show how "stripping away all the useless superstition and anti biblical traditions/hierarchies that arose in the preceding centuries" and free up God's people to worship God without man made props.

This forum, particularly atheists here, mention "Christianity" but that "Christianity" is not biblical but is a syncretistic form that has combined pagan elements with dead ritual.

hellas1

Hi all,

I think that this issue is PARAMOUNT to and for these forums!

Let's talk more about this.

hellas1

[chriscase]

Hi Hellas,
I don't generally butt in to threads that are clearly framed as "of interest only to believers." I wouldn't have done so here, either, except for this post of yours:

Hi all,

My purpose in posting this is NOT to disrespect the believers, REAL Christians who were/are in denominations.

Rather, my purpose is to show how "stripping away all the useless superstition and anti biblical traditions/hierarchies that arose in the preceding centuries" and free up God's people to worship God without man made props.

This forum, particularly atheists here, mention "Christianity" but that "Christianity" is not biblical but is a syncretistic form that has combined pagan elements with dead ritual.

hellas1

Hi all,

I think that this issue is PARAMOUNT to and for these forums!

Let's talk more about this.

hellas1

You seem to be implying here that the "Christianity" we atheists are not believing in is not "the real" Christianity, and if only we would allow ourselves to be educated by you and/or your special sources, we would have some kind of different opinion.

If this is actually what you are claiming, I do object, since nothing you or anyone else has posted here really changes the identity of Christianity enough for me to accept its theological claims. It's still a monotheistic construction that asserts an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator, isn't it? Unless that has changed... radically, I don't see how my lack of detailed information about Christian doctrine in Antiquity makes the kind of difference you are saying it should.

Beyond that, I would also like to point out that by making the claim that a "believers-only" thread is "PARAMOUNT to and for these forums" you seem to be implying that the central purpose of the forum is to carry on believers-only discussions. I claim no special knowledge there, but my personal experience of these forums tells me this is a massive overstatement on your part.

[hellas1]

@Chriscase,

I don't imply that anyone here in this or any other forum is stupid. Never had, never will.

BUT...I do state that the "Christianity" being discussed and thrashed in this sub-forum is not Biblical Christianity and that most people posting things about Christianity here have not validated their stances.

I do NOT claim a "special" revelation from God as I only point people back to Biblical Christianity and not the modern denominations seen today. Period.

Furthermore, I recommend you pick up or read at your local library "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola & George Barna. Read what they have to say regarding Christianity and then post after you've read the book, as they do a quite thorough job of showing how various developments occurred within Protestant circles for the most part & Catholic/Orthodox circles only in a minor degree.

Thanks,
hellas1

@Carpathian Wolf,

Still thinkin' of you, buddy! Don't worry.

@Caledonian,

I'm not a Protestant, brother. Nor am I anti-Orthodox either!
I only want to live out what I see Jesus doing and want to see believers follow the New Testament via the leading & empowering of the Holy Spirit, not those traditions of men which are dead.

NOTE, I said "those traditions which ARE dead." Not all traditions are dead even though people have wrong percepts about them.

Peace out
hellas1

[chriscase]

I don't imply that anyone here in this or any other forum is stupid. Never had, never will.

BUT...I do state that the "Christianity" being discussed and thrashed in this sub-forum is not Biblical Christianity and that most people posting things about Christianity here have not validated their stances.

I do NOT claim a "special" revelation from God as I only point people back to Biblical Christianity and not the modern denominations seen today. Period.

Furthermore, I recommend you pick up or read at your local library "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola & George Barna. Read what they have to say regarding Christianity and then post after you've read the book, as they do a quite thorough job of showing how various developments occurred within Protestant circles for the most part & Catholic/Orthodox circles only in a minor degree.

Thanks,
hellas1

Since you yourself have presumably read these books that you want others to read, perhaps you can answer my previous query:

Is there anything in these particular texts that contradicts the common understanding of the Christian God? Is the Christian God of these texts still omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and omnipresent? Is it some kind of intelligent deity that is purported to have created the world?

Unless you give me a very surprising answer to this question, I'm probably going to skip the reading assignment.

[Carpathian Wolf]

hellas, what pagan elements were absorbed in (Orthodox) Christianity?

[hellas1]

@Carpathian Wolf,

In Orthodoxy, pagan elements were absorbed differently and in a gradual way also.

First, Priests & Bishops and what they do versus what they biblically should do:
Priests "officiate" over liturgy, communion, funerals, marriage, etc.

When a person reads the New Testament we find no such creature who does the above. None of the Apostles did what the modern "Priest" does.

Why? ALL of God's people, Christians, are a Royal Priesthood according to Peter.

Roman Catholicism's version of the unmarried priest has connection with pagan cults where the priest & priestess were celibate for the god/goddess.

Furthermore, along the above lines:

Liturgy in Greek means "work/direction" geared towards serving the saints, not a service where people fill up pews and face forward waiting for a single man/woman to utter prayers and such.

Communion or the "Eucharist" means "Giving thanks" and when we first read about it in I Corinthians, it was a love feast where the bread & wine symbolizing Jesus death were given to all the saints gathered. This is why when we read I Corinthians Paul chastised them saying "Some of you are drunk, while others are hungry." Clearly, when kept in its' immediate textual context, Paul was saying that the rich Christians were lording it over the poor who were ill treated and went hungry.

Marriage: In the Roman empire, people had to register with the establishment per Roman law.

We see no examples of an Apostle "marrying" people nor do we see examples of a priest "marrying" people in the New Testament. We see that God marries people and that marriage should be acknowledged as such by other believers who know the married couple via relating to and with them.

Paul did say however to obey the government, which is what real believers did.

Funerals: No New Testament model for a priest presiding over a funeral exists.

Bishops:
The Greek word "Geron" meant Elder, "Episkopos" meant Overseer and the Greek word "Presviteros" means to preside/guard over.

According to modern practice, Bishops do not meet the need on a grass roots level but are busy in denominational hierarchy, doing whatever, which has no New Testament model or confirmation.

If we look to Pagan Rome, we do find a hierarchy as well as when we look to Pagan Greece and other countries paganism as well.

The New Testament model for an Elder/Overseer is found in Timothy and in the book of Acts.
When we examine the New Testament's modus operandi, we find that Elders should Oversee & Preside/Guard over the flock of God.

Second, Icons as being "Holy:"

The Greek word "Agion/Agios" means "Set apart" and is translated as "Holy" in English bibles.
The New Testament shows that "Holiness" is "Set apartness" for and to God's will & purposes.

According to the New Testament, no icon or statue of any Christian was ever sanctioned by the Lord or by the Apostles. Furthermore, the immediate historical record following the death of the Apostles shows NO sanction for any such icon or statue.

Lastly, a piece of wood with an oil painting upon it has no inherent "Holiness."
Only God has inherent holiness and that he give to people who trust in Christ Jesus.

We do find pagans using painted symbols and pictures of the god/goddess in Rome and elsewhere and we do find marble statues of the god/goddess in Rome & Greece as well. This is the root for images of the saints.

Third, Church buildings:

In the New Testament, no "Church building" is ever found because the Christians met in each others homes, when possible and if not in larger areas (See Acts). Constantine allowed the use of buildings for Christians to gather in.

A building has no inherent "Holiness" to it. Rather God's people have the Lord inside them who makes them holy.
As Paul said in Acts:"God does NOT dwell in temples made with human hands, nor does he need any person to serve him."

Fourth, Most importantly: Preaching the Gospel

Being brought up Greek Orthodox, I was never told about the complete Gospel:
God becoming human in the person of Jesus, dying on the cross for my sins to bridge the gap between God and me and so forth and so on.

In Orthodoxy, much as in Catholicism, the preaching of the Gospel has been replaced by Gospel snippets and much liturgical function. THIS is the most damaging thing any denomination can do and it clearly has no New Testament model whatsoever.

hellas1

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

amen Hellas I couldn't agree more with what you're saying.

Professed Christians throughout history have been determined to undo the gospel and cast us all into a religion more resembling pre-exile Judaism, with its observances, rituals, hierarchies, arbitrary rules etc.

These were only ever given to the Jews as foreshadows of Christ. Either you can have these worldly aspects of religion, or you can have Christ. You can't have both. Or at least, one always detracts from the other.

Modern Catholics and Orthodox (and many Protestant) churches could'nt be further from the teachings and worship seen in the early followers of Christ if they tried. Hence why they must appeal to tradition to justify their beliefs and practices, even when it conflicts with scripture.

[Carpathian Wolf]

@Carpathian Wolf,

In Orthodoxy, pagan elements were absorbed differently and in a gradual way also.

First, Priests & Bishops and what they do versus what they biblically should do:
Priests "officiate" over liturgy, communion, funerals, marriage, etc.

When a person reads the New Testament we find no such creature who does the above. None of the Apostles did what the modern "Priest" does.

Why? ALL of God's people, Christians, are a Royal Priesthood according to Peter.

Roman Catholicism's version of the unmarried priest has connection with pagan cults where the priest & priestess were celibate for the god/goddess.

Maybe you should look at the Old Testament and see what the Jewish priests did. And if you went to Orthodox Church you would know that in Orthodoxy our priests tell us that we are all called to be priests.

And concerning the 'catholics' which I am very critical of, I prefer the name "Frankish Church" or "Papal Church" but I will not agree to that non sense that you spew about them. They do not marry not because of some pagan tradition, but economics. A married priest when he dies he leaves his inheritance to his children and wife. In the west all of that gets recycled back into the church.

Furthermore, along the above lines:

Liturgy in Greek means "work/direction" geared towards serving the saints, not a service where people fill up pews and face forward waiting for a single man/woman to utter prayers and such.

Liturgy does NOT mean serving the saints. That's blatant non sense. You are making incorrect criticism by saying such a thing. And nobody is sitting in pews waiting for signals either. It's worship for God. Wording it in a dishonest and mocking manner doesn't change facts.

Communion or the "Eucharist" means "Giving thanks" and when we first read about it in I Corinthians, it was a love feast where the bread & wine symbolizing Jesus death were given to all the saints gathered. This is why when we read I Corinthians Paul chastised them saying "Some of you are drunk, while others are hungry." Clearly, when kept in its' immediate textual context, Paul was saying that the rich Christians were lording it over the poor who were ill treated and went hungry.

No not symbolized. It was that. Christ said himself that "This is my blood and body" specifically. The issues the people had in Corinth have what to do with this?

Marriage: In the Roman empire, people had to register with the establishment per Roman law.

We see no examples of an Apostle "marrying" people nor do we see examples of a priest "marrying" people in the New Testament. We see that God marries people and that marriage should be acknowledged as such by other believers who know the married couple via relating to and with them.

Paul did say however to obey the government, which is what real believers did.

Wrong again. You forget that Christianity is a continuation of pre Rabbinic Judaism. Who married people in old Jewish tradition? Was it not the priest?

Funerals: No New Testament model for a priest presiding over a funeral exists.

Nobody in the NT wiped their butt after going number 2. Does it make it a sin? Your arguments probably stem from the other heterodox clown protestants that come to greece trying to teach 'christianity' to authentic Orthodox people with cheap 2 cent arguments such as this. Again look at the OT and the role of the priest.

Bishops:
The Greek word "Geron" meant Elder, "Episkopos" meant Overseer and the Greek word "Presviteros" means to preside/guard over.

According to modern practice, Bishops do not meet the need on a grass roots level but are busy in denominational hierarchy, doing whatever, which has no New Testament model or confirmation.

If we look to Pagan Rome, we do find a hierarchy as well as when we look to Pagan Greece and other countries paganism as well.

The New Testament model for an Elder/Overseer is found in Timothy and in the book of Acts.
When we examine the New Testament's modus operandi, we find that Elders should Oversee & Preside/Guard over the flock of God.

Go read acts more closely. James was the Bishop in Jerusalem, Peter was in Antioch etc.

Second, Icons as being "Holy:"

The Greek word "Agion/Agios" means "Set apart" and is translated as "Holy" in English bibles.
The New Testament shows that "Holiness" is "Set apartness" for and to God's will & purposes.

According to the New Testament, no icon or statue of any Christian was ever sanctioned by the Lord or by the Apostles. Furthermore, the immediate historical record following the death of the Apostles shows NO sanction for any such icon or statue.

Lastly, a piece of wood with an oil painting upon it has no inherent "Holiness."
Only God has inherent holiness and that he give to people who trust in Christ Jesus.

We do find pagans using painted symbols and pictures of the god/goddess in Rome and elsewhere and we do find marble statues of the god/goddess in Rome & Greece as well. This is the root for images of the saints.

And yet if we look at the old Jewish temples they all had icons in them. If we look at the Christian catacombs of Rome from the very first centuries, what do we find? Icons. Icons were used before even the bible was put together. Let's put things into context. No I am not putting icons above the word of God but your narrow neo protestant view of history is astoundingly ignorant.

Third, Church buildings:

In the New Testament, no "Church building" is ever found because the Christians met in each others homes, when possible and if not in larger areas (See Acts). Constantine allowed the use of buildings for Christians to gather in.

A building has no inherent "Holiness" to it. Rather God's people have the Lord inside them who makes them holy.
As Paul said in Acts:"God does NOT dwell in temples made with human hands, nor does he need any person to serve him."

The Christians continued to meet still in the old Jewish temples. The people make the Church building holy by joining together for God. Again look at old Jewish tradition and the OT.

Fourth, Most importantly: Preaching the Gospel

Being brought up Greek Orthodox, I was never told about the complete Gospel:
God becoming human in the person of Jesus, dying on the cross for my sins to bridge the gap between God and me and so forth and so on.

In Orthodoxy, much as in Catholicism, the preaching of the Gospel has been replaced by Gospel snippets and much liturgical function. THIS is the most damaging thing any denomination can do and it clearly has no New Testament model whatsoever.

hellas1

This is utter non sense especially considering the Orthodox are the only ones who actually use the full bible. What part of the bible was "omitted" then?

amen Hellas I couldn't agree more with what you're saying.

Professed Christians throughout history have been determined to undo the gospel and cast us all into a religion more resembling pre-exile Judaism, with its observances, rituals, hierarchies, arbitrary rules etc.

These were only ever given to the Jews as foreshadows of Christ. Either you can have these worldly aspects of religion, or you can have Christ. You can't have both. Or at least, one always detracts from the other.

Modern Catholics and Orthodox (and many Protestant) churches could'nt be further from the teachings and worship seen in the early followers of Christ if they tried. Hence why they must appeal to tradition to justify their beliefs and practices, even when it conflicts with scripture.

There is nothing inherently wrong with observances, rituals, hierarchies and rules. If you understand the history behind it and the function there is no issue. Aside from out right dishonest criticisms (or maybe based in ignorance) or wide ranging vague criticisms you guys haven't really said anything. You sound like a bunch of Gnostics to be honest.

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

There is nothing inherently wrong with observances, rituals, hierarchies and rules. If you understand the history behind it and the function there is no issue. Aside from out right dishonest criticisms (or maybe based in ignorance) or wide ranging vague criticisms you guys haven't really said anything. You sound like a bunch of Gnostics to be honest.

So maybe you could give some scriptural justification for them.

My own "vague" comments about returning to the bondage of the law etc seem to be proved by your first response to Hellas in your above post -"Maybe you should look at the Old Testament and see what the Jewish priests did."

We have the New Covenant you know!

A modern priesthood usurps the rightful position of Christ as our high priest. Under the law seen in the OT (which you seem to take your practices from), there "truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man [Christ], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood (Hebrews 7:23-24). Christ "needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." (Hebrews 7:26-28).

What then is exactly the purpose of your Orthodox priesthood (that happens to also be absent in the New Testament)?

Modern Orthodox Churches don't seem to have much to do with the Christianity seen in the New Testament, they seem more like a sort of crypto pre-exile Judaism.

[Carpathian Wolf]

So maybe you could give some scriptural justification for them.

My own "vague" comments about returning to the bondage of the law etc seem to be proved by your first response to Hellas in your above post -"Maybe you should look at the Old Testament and see what the Jewish priests did."

We have the New Covenant you know!

A modern priesthood usurps the rightful position of Christ as our high priest. Under the law seen in the OT (which you seem to take your practices from), there "truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man [Christ], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood (Hebrews 7:23-24). Christ "needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." (Hebrews 7:26-28).

What then is exactly the purpose of your Orthodox priesthood (that happens to also be absent in the New Testament)?

Modern Orthodox Churches don't seem to have much to do with the Christianity seen in the New Testament, they seem more like a sort of crypto pre-exile Judaism.

What would you like scriptural justification for?

So the question is what aspects of the OT have been rendered obsolete by the NT. If you can find justification for those things you disagree with as being rendered obsolete by the NT i'd like to hear them. Simply saying "but the NT" isn't answering that.

Of course the Orthodox Church is a continuation of the OT Jews. That's the idea. It isn't to disregard completely the OT. That is why you have it in the bible. It's not just there for no reason. Christ quoted from the OT some seem to forget. Priests are no longer there to make sacrifice for our sins because Christ has fulfilled that. But they are not rendered obsolete either. If it were up to you perhaps we would sit alone in a room with 4 blank walls with nothing but the bible that "fell out of the sky" ignoring the facts that Christianity and the faith does not end with the bible, but begins with Christ.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Priest

"Modern Orthodoxy" is one in the same with the early Church which is the Orthodox Church. I can point to exactly when protestant sects arose and why. Like wise with the papal church. Can you do the same with the Orthodox Church?