Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415161718192021222324 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 504

Thread: Small Orthodox corner

  1. #261
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,136

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Because I know a proffesor of Religius Law about Orthodoxy:
    The action of Petriarch of Moskow to deny the Ecumanical Patriarch to point new Patriarces in Eastern Europe and Entire Asia is Heretical. Why ? Because ANY action of denial of any desision of any Ecumanical Council is a sin and automaticaly becomes a HERECY.. Remember that the excuse of the 1054 Shism was the translation of a sinle Phrase!
    No matter if The Patriarch of Moscow still claims that is Orthodox his actions make him a schismatic aka a heretic.
    The Patriarch of Moskow tried to interfear in Greece with the previus Archbishop that defying the Ecumenical Patriarch wanted to claim for him self the title of Patriarch! Then the entire number of the PROFFESORS of the Thoelogical Univercity in Thessaloniki pointed our that such action is a herecy! To make it simple to understand. Any change in the Ecumenical Councils desisions texts (even a dot) consideres HERECY. The Pope's desision to name Charlemagne Roman EMPEROR was a herecy because in the first Ecumencal Cuncil there is this Phracse "The Is One God and that God has Only one representative on Earth the Roman Emperor of the New Rome". Rome (the clasic city had nothing to do with that desision since there was a New Rome).
    In early of teh previus century some people wanted to transllate the Holly Books in modern GREEK. That stoped as heretic because Hellenistic Greek are for too complicated to accuratly translated in pooor modern greek language.
    The TGC mod's Turkomanic Leaque Preview is out.

  2. #262
    Alexander78's Avatar Campidoctor
    Civitate Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    USSPC
    Posts
    1,539

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    AnthoniusII

    Please let us know the chronology of events. After that, when and how the Moscow Patriarch tried to interfere somewhere, forbade anything and most importantly, provide to us a document (the decision of the Ecumenical Council) where Patriarch Kirill was declared a heretic and his actions were recognized as schismatic. I'm afraid that Moscow professors of Religius Law about Orthodoxy will fundamentally disagree with you.

    In the meantime, a little excursion. Ukrainian schismatic Filaret (by the way, according to some sources, a former KGB informant who denounced his brothers priests) was excommunicated at the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997. The holy Phanar did not have any questions about this to the Moscow Patriarchate. The Ecumenical Patriarch was notified of Filaret's schismatic activities and did not interfere in any way in his defense. Moreover, all Filaret's requests to give permission to create his own church were rejected by the Fanar and were not even considered seriously. And then, suddenly, a miracle happens. In 2018, Constantinople removes the anathema from Filaret imposed by the ROC. What happened? Why did the Ecumenical Patriarch change his decision?

    Constantinople canceled the synodal decision of 1686, according to which the Kiev Metropolia was transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate, noting that this decision was made "according to the circumstances of that time." Excellent wording. Bartholomew actually legalized the schismatics, and violated the canons. So where should we look for heretics and schismatics? To date, relations between Moscow and Constantinople are frozen, and the situation of Orthodox people in Ukraine has deteriorated sharply, thanks to the unreasonable and irresponsible actions of Barthalomew.

    But what does our Greek brothers care about this? They are looking for heretics for the good of Constantinople. I have the impression that if the Ecumenical Patriarch cancels all synodal protocols by his decree, limiting himself to vague explanations, then they will find an excuse for him here. Open your eyes at last, brothers.

  3. #263
    alhoon's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    23,307

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    The action of Petriarch of Moskow to deny the Ecumanical Patriarch to point new Patriarces in Eastern Europe and Entire Asia is Heretical. Why ? Because ANY action of denial of any desision of any Ecumanical Council is a sin and automaticaly becomes a HERECY..
    No, it doesn't. Only when it contradicts dogma, not when it contradicts hierarchal and church-organizational decisions.
    For example, the old-calendar (παλιοημερολογίτες) folks are not heretics despite disagreeing with the church on when Christmas should be celebrated etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    In early of teh previus century some people wanted to transllate the Holly Books in modern GREEK. That stoped as heretic because Hellenistic Greek are for too complicated to accuratly translated in pooor modern greek language.

    So, the Ιερά Μητρόπολης Θεσσαλονίκης is heretical? What you say never happened Antonius, the Bible was translated.
    http://www.imth.gr/default.aspx?lang...loc=1&page=258

    This is what I was using as I have trouble with the ancient text. Unfortunately, since Flash plugins are no longer working in my browsers, I can't read it and I have to rely on other translations, by theologians.
    Last edited by alhoon; November 23, 2021 at 07:45 PM.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  4. #264
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,353

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    alhoon,

    The rest is what the Scriptures tell and as far as Mary is concerned she died a natural death and her soul was taken up into Heaven just as all other believers are. John the Baptist was the chosen one to announce the arrival of Messiah even when still in his mother's womb when he jumped at the arrival of the pregnant Mary. That's what the Bible tells us. Man ordains nothing. It is God Who does the ordaining and to whom does He do that? He does it to all those that He has brought to regeneration, them being called the elect of God. Bishops and deacons were to be the husband or servant to one wife, why? Because Christ is the Husband of one wife, His church. His elect are the only church that belongs to Him.

    The two you mention are from the same parable. One is in Heaven with Abraham and the other in Hell which is adjacent to Heaven separated by a wide chasm. Now why would Abraham be able to speak to the guy in Hell if he, Abraham, was not alive alongside Lazarus?

    The second coming brings Jesus back to raise up those still alive and His as well as to raise up every unbeliever alive or dead so that judgement may commence. Dead believers will be with Him, why? Because their souls are still alive and as promised by God He would never let them out of His hands. Where are His hands? Where else can they be but in Heaven so it follows that all the dead in Christ were also in heaven else why were Moses, Elijah, Enoch and Abraham seen after their deaths to be alive and well?

  5. #265
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    Oh right. Those two. The Patriarchs fighting over Qatar.



    Those games of Patriarchal thrones is really unbecoming of Christianity. We already had a reputation as having a corrupt clergy. We don't have to prove it.
    Speaking as a lapsed Catholic...


    i have a meme for this


    Aren't the disputes in the eastern churches largely disciplinary matters? I mean I helps if you can stain the opposing faction with some doctrinal error or even heresy (classic Papal move) but ultimately the Great Church seems largely intact to me in comparison to the Protestant, Reformed and CoE churches which seems to sprout doctrinal variations almost form parish to parish.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  6. #266

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    I have no issue at all with you calling us Eastern. Or Eastern Christianity or thinking we're heterodox when we are not.

    Now, about that Biblical Christianity, most Protestants are not Sole Scripture. Methodists, Anglicans and more also believe in Sacred Tradition. "Catholics-lite" as a Protestant friend of mine calls them.
    The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion - The Church of England

    VI. Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

    Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
    The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church - The United Methodist Church

    Article V — Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

    The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
    There's nothing wrong with appreciating the insights of an extrabiblical author, it only becomes a problem when their opinions are elevated to the status of dogma without Scriptural warrant. We can find great value in the writings of various patristic, medieval, Reformation and modern theologians, and still maintain that their opinions are true only insofar as they agree with the Scriptures. To quote Cyril of Jerusalem:

    For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

    CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 4, Cyril of Jerusalem [c. 313-386 A.D.]
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch

  7. #267
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    ....
    There's nothing wrong with appreciating the insights of an extrabiblical author, it only becomes a problem when their opinions are elevated to the status of dogma without Scriptural warrant. We can find great value in the writings of various patristic, medieval, Reformation and modern theologians, and still maintain that their opinions are true only insofar as they agree with the Scriptures. To quote Cyril of Jerusalem:
    ..whose opinion, according to Sola Scriptura, is to be dismissed by 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

    The traditions do not cease because Luther insists that they must: no man should interpose themselves between God and his message as Luther tries to do by ignoring and disparaging the Epistle of James. Semi-Christian is the most generous term for this ribald and beer soaked theological approach. Melanchthon's solid and sensible criticism of evil builds is a temple of theological purity torn down by the blind Samson-like rage of Luther.

    The doctrine of the church has been debated for 2000 years, not a few centuries. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a paradoxical innovation: scripture directs you to follow oral tradition equally with written, and the apostolic succession of the Patriarchs embodies that tradition.

    There have been violent and successful
    enthusiasms down the centuries, such as Arianism and Iconolasm, but they sputter out typically as they are driven more by the emotion of some powerful preacher than any coherence or strict scriptural adherence: the current fracturing of Baptists and other minor denominations in the US is typical of the decline of minor diversionary sects. Its practically impossible to keep track of the ideological mutations as they seem to vary from parish to parish because I suspect they have lost the conciliar tradition that holds fast to Christ.

    Political churches like the CoE either borrow from more sincere enthusiasm (as some in the CoE have borrowed from Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc) or muddle into semi-Papism as Runcie did. Its a shame the Anglian church is so weakly founded, an many of the most sincere and generous Christians I know come from this tradition.

    Unfortunately the patriarchs have dabbled in politics, no more so than the heirs of Peter, and allowed wretched power to influence their understanding of doctrine, but always the remedy of council (a scriptural procedure) and tradition to carry them forward.

    Its a crying same that powerful preachers like Luther (meanly ignored and then politically manipulated) and Hus (savagely murdered by the pornocracy) were excluded against their will from the great Church: the Patriarch of Rome in his pursuit of power has riven the church again and again.

    The keenest wound to the immense pride of the Vatican is made by the charge of "no man between us and Jesus) and the Popes greed and vainglorious aspiration to primacy (even above councils and politically above the Emperor) caused the schism and the reformation, and the shrieking (and frankly ludicrous and anti-traditional) claim of infallibility makes it impossible to reconcile. Hopefully Kung etc will have their way and make the Pope back into a man instead of a Deus ex Cathedra.

    The Five patriarchs and their junior colleagues in generous and tolerant concert could heal the church and spread the faith again, in their various ways as they have since their apostles were first sent out. The body of Chriust was scattered after Pentecost, but Paul and Peter and James met at Jerusalem (not with every single believer, just those of the apostolic order, however much that irks the democratic tradition of "pick up a Bible and rant") and the Spirit moved them from discord to agreement. Why would that not work again?
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  8. #268
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,353

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Cyclops,

    That's the problem with all the church systems in that the Gospel has been diluted so much as Paul warned in his letter to the Galatians as well as others then. The church of Jesus Christ was never intended to be large in any generation for as Jesus said, " The path is so narrow that few get in..." The first churches were mostly Jewish and if anyone knows anything about the Jews one would know that at that time they would only have spoken Hebrew in their churches as they did in their synagogues. So the letters written originally would have been in Hebrew and that would only change when the Gentile numbers overtook the Jews as believers thus making translations necessary. Where the old Hebrew letters are now is anyone's guess although orthodox Judaism still retains the Old Covenant up to this day. This is important because we have first hand knowledge about all the prophets and their telling about Jesus.

    It is only after the appointment of bishops and deacons that things began to go wrong and why Paul sent out people as is written to correct these problems. Why even these offices had a scriptural meaning wherein a bishop had to have but one wife and a deacon too because it displayed the connection with Jesus being head of the church which is His bride. It follows on from the saying in Genesis that when a man and woman are joined in marriage they become one so it is with Jesus and them that are born again. Now marriage as we know was for the procreation of children for the glory of God, the firstborn male bringing in that glory, a Jewish woman without children was quite devastated if she never produced any. We can read that about Sarah and Elizabeth before God stepped in and blessed them with Isaac and John. Personally the only flaw I see in the ointment is all the nonsense about relics, icons, saint and Mary worshipping. None of these are God and indeed if one reads Deuteronomy 4:15-19. one sees what happened to the Israelites who disobeyed these commands and so are we today not held in the same bracket?

  9. #269
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    That's the problem with all the church systems...
    Bishops and Deacons are scriptural. Not having them seems to be unlike the Church as it was founded.

    How does the Church of England resolve doctrinal issues? The Council of Jerusalem resolved issues in the primitive church, it is scriptural.

    Who should attend councils? In Acts the Apostles and Elders meet and propose but it is the ancient patriarchs (mentioned in scripture and confirmed by tradition) James and Peter who speak, and their decision is the decision of the council, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul confirms this in Corinthians that the apostles are the head of the church, and the tradition (confirmed to be equal to scripture by scripture) is that the patriarchs are their heirs by apostolic succession.

    It is a recent innovation for doctrine to be dictated by those not in the apostolic tradition, sitting alone in a cell or a palace. The Pope's greatest doctrinal error (it seems to me) is to indulge in the same sort of arrogant "per scriba solus" theologising. The church is a gathering with leaders, not a vitriolic soloist.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  10. #270
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,353

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Cyclops,

    Of course Bishops and Deacons are Scriptural but not just as overseers also as servants. In the Baptist church we call them Elders and Deacons fulfilling the same tasks and also representing the church alongside the Minister when there are councils. When these happen the leading Authority over these men is the Bible as we see it as the inerrant word of God. So there is no office in our belief that is any different from the churches running in the Apostolic age. Any of these men can be approached at any time by anyone in their congregation for in the eyes of God we are all one in Christ.

  11. #271
    alhoon's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    23,307

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    And then, we have wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_tradition

    "Sacred tradition is a theological term used in major Christian traditions, primarily those claiming apostolic succession, such as the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, and Anglican traditions"

    So, I get the Anglican version as "Scripture contains what we need for salvation" not "Scripture is the ONLY place that contains what we need for salvation." I.e. Prima Scriptura not Sola Scripture.

    But I agree with you that Sacred Tradition is ingrained in the Scripture and comes from the Scripture. It helps us understand and explain what is written as per the Holy Synods (divinely inspired) explained it or what we learn through the life of Saints or experience it through the liturgy of the church.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  12. #272
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,136

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post


    So, the Ιερά Μητρόπολης Θεσσαλονίκης is heretical? What you say never happened Antonius, the Bible was translated.
    http://www.imth.gr/default.aspx?lang...loc=1&page=258
    May be yes may be not. But the curent Bishop of Thessaloniki is ilegal and he should become a monk according to the Church Law that says that "If a Bishop abandon's his Metropolis for another consider's that commits the sin of adultery and his only option is to withdraw to a Monastery as a simple monk). But we saw the same patern to happen many times because of politics. But FAITH is above politics.
    The TGC mod's Turkomanic Leaque Preview is out.

  13. #273
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Cyclops,

    Of course Bishops and Deacons are Scriptural but not just as overseers also as servants. In the Baptist church we call them Elders and Deacons fulfilling the same tasks and also representing the church alongside the Minister when there are councils. When these happen the leading Authority over these men is the Bible as we see it as the inerrant word of God. So there is no office in our belief that is any different from the churches running in the Apostolic age. Any of these men can be approached at any time by anyone in their congregation for in the eyes of God we are all one in Christ.
    There are elder and deacons and bishops in scripture, why would a church calling itself Christian leave out a scripturally attested Christian office? I mean that like leaving out the eucharist, surely a Christian church must follow Christian rites and institutions? I mean Islam does something similar, so I suppose there's a precedent, but its not really a Christian Church if it doesn't have a bishop...
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  14. #274
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,353

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Cyclops,

    Well concerning the office of bishop the Apostle Peter said that he didn't want to serve tables, rather get out into the world and preach the Gospel. From Scripture Paul in organising the churches he usually put two bishops into place plus deacons, not just one, why? I suspect that as God instituted the two witness system Paul kept to the same principal so that no one man had supreme authority over the church as a whole and the individual churches for the main. We can see that even when he, Paul, sent people to visit the churches they were not alone. To Paul the Gospel that he preached was the core that had not to be breached and when he did so he was accompanied by other men although not always mentioned. So, can a church work without a bishop? Of course it can, why? Because " where any one or two believers are I will be in their midst...." Any group of believers can remember the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by the breaking of bread and drinking of wine without a bishop, elder or deacon in sight.

  15. #275
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    ....So, can a church work without a bishop? Of course it can, why? Because " where any one or two believers are I will be in their midst...." Any group of believers can remember the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by the breaking of bread and drinking of wine without a bishop, elder or deacon in sight.
    When there's a question of doctrinal difference, how did Paul and Peter resolve it? Diktat from a King? Or council of apostles? Asking for a friend.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  16. #276

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    ..whose opinion, according to Sola Scriptura, is to be dismissed by 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
    No, it isn't. Biblical Christians fully affirm that before the Scriptures were written, the Church was gathered around the apostles and sustained by their live preaching. However, it is also true that the apostles died in the first century and their oral teaching ceased with them. There's no 'spoken tradition' to follow anymore since the apostles are no longer speaking to anyone in this world.

    Biblical Christianity is not opposed to tradition. The term "tradition" as it is used in the Bible simply refers to what has been passed down or handed over; hence when the Bible speaks of Jesus being "handed over" to be crucified, it uses the same Greek word as "tradition." Since the apostles' teachings were handed down to us in the Scriptures, we can say that the Bible contains the true apostolic tradition. Irenaeus (considered an authoritative 'church father' in the East) says as much:

    We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

    CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, Irenaeus of Lyon [c. 130-202 A.D.]
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch

  17. #277
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,353

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Cyclops,

    The problem was that James assumed the leadership of the church at Jerusalem because he was the eldest brother to Jesus even though all accepted that James at that point was not born again. It was the people that James sent out who were changing the Gospel by insisting that a Christian had to be circumcised. At this Paul went up to Jerusalem to sort this question out which he did with both James and Peter as well as the others there. It was after this that James began to have visions of Jesus and as a result became himself a Christian. After that meeting with Paul word was sent out that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. It meant that Peter could carry on preaching without the yoke of circumcision or eating habits hanging over him as had been the case before Paul sorted it all out.

    Was it the finish of false representation within the churches? No, for even whilst the Apostles or at least some of them were still alive there were still men trying to bring in falsities into churches and that was something that appears unending right up until this very day. That is why there are so many different denominations. So, where does the blame lie? It lies with the eldership, the bishops and deacons who went off Scripture by allowing tradition to overtake the authority of Scripture. In some cases it was a grasping of power because some believed that the Word of God was not sufficient not just for salvation but the general running of their church systems. The result was that men who were never born again became the leaders of these systems and whose word was not to be questioned. It's why one cannot even debate with some about the Gospel of Jesus Christ because their church system does not allow it. Like the Jews who surrounded the Ten Commandments with some six hundred other additives so too has the Gospel in its simplicity been surrounded by praying to Mary, praying to saints, bowing to relics and icons. The Gospel never taught that yet tradition has.

  18. #278
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    That's nice, but how do Anglicans decide points of theological difference? The primitive church had a council, and the great Church (the old Orthodox patriarchies and the somewhat wayward Roman episcopate) follow that scriptural methodology. What is the Anglican way? I am very keen to hear an answer rather than off topic unscriptural preaching.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Cyclops,

    The problem was that James assumed the leadership of the church at Jerusalem because he was the eldest brother to Jesus even though all accepted that James at that point was not born again. It was the people that James sent out who were changing the Gospel by insisting that a Christian had to be circumcised. At this Paul went up to Jerusalem to sort this question out which he did with both James and Peter as well as the others there. It was after this that James began to have visions of Jesus and as a result became himself a Christian. After that meeting with Paul word was sent out that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. It meant that Peter could carry on preaching without the yoke of circumcision or eating habits hanging over him as had been the case before Paul sorted it all out.

    Was it the finish of false representation within the churches? No, for even whilst the Apostles or at least some of them were still alive there were still men trying to bring in falsities into churches and that was something that appears unending right up until this very day. That is why there are so many different denominations. So, where does the blame lie? It lies with the eldership, the bishops and deacons who went off Scripture by allowing tradition to overtake the authority of Scripture. In some cases it was a grasping of power because some believed that the Word of God was not sufficient not just for salvation but the general running of their church systems. The result was that men who were never born again became the leaders of these systems and whose word was not to be questioned. It's why one cannot even debate with some about the Gospel of Jesus Christ because their church system does not allow it. Like the Jews who surrounded the Ten Commandments with some six hundred other additives so too has the Gospel in its simplicity been surrounded by praying to Mary, praying to saints, bowing to relics and icons. The Gospel never taught that yet tradition has.
    ...so you've excommunicated an apostle, the head of the church as it existed after Jesus died (and a real apostle, chosen by the living Jesus, not a post hoc self appointee chosen by a disembodied voice), and rejected tradition (and the scripture that enshrines it).What is your evidence that James was not born again? Its an utterly bizarre claim, James (unlike Paul) was present at Pentecost.

    Is it fair to say your faith is not Sola Scriptura, but somewhat inaccurately based on Scriptura Selecta? I mean I'm not a Christian but if I were I would have thought Jesus brother might have a clue about what Jesus' teachings were.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  19. #279
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,353

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Cyclops,

    Quote, " James evidently was not a follower of Jesus during his public ministry. Paul attributes James’s later conversion to the appearance of Christ resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:7). Three years after Paul’s conversion, James was an important leader in the Jerusalem church (Galatians 1:18–19), where he assumed even more significance after King Herod Agrippa I of Judaea in about ad 44 beheaded the Apostle St. James, son of Zebedee, and after Peter fled from Jerusalem (Acts 12:1–17). He was the chief spokesman for the Jerusalem church at the Council of Jerusalem regarding Paul’s mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15:13) and final visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:18).

    Later tradition records that James was called “the Just” and was noted for his fulfillment of Jewish law. Though opposing those Jewish Christians who required that Gentile Christians submit to Jewish Law, including circumcision, he believed Jewish Christians should continue loyalty to Jewish practice and piety, as he did himself. His piety and zeal for the Law had become a basis for various legends; thus, later traditions emphasize James’s piety and popularity with Jews and Jewish Christians. This popularity is evident in the Jews’ anger when priestly authorities had James put to death, reputedly either by stoning (after Flavius Josephus, historian of the Jews) or by being thrown from a Temple tower (after the early Christian writer St. Hegesippus). The early church designates him the first bishop of Jerusalem, though the title is not used in the New Testament. The tradition that he was the author of The Letter of James, a New Testament book of moral instructions, is not supported by modern scholarship." unquote.

    So, just who am I excommunicating and why?

  20. #280
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401

    Default Re: Small Orthodox corner

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Cyclops,

    Quote, " James evidently was not a follower of Jesus during his public ministry. Paul attributes James’s later conversion to the appearance of Christ resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:7).

    Three years after Paul’s conversion, James was an important leader in the Jerusalem church (Galatians 1:18–19), where he assumed even more significance after King Herod Agrippa I of Judaea in about ad 44 beheaded the Apostle St. James, son of Zebedee, and after Peter fled from Jerusalem (Acts 12:1–17). He was the chief spokesman for the Jerusalem church at the Council of Jerusalem regarding Paul’s mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15:13) and final visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:18).

    Later tradition records that James was called “the Just” and was noted for his fulfillment of Jewish law. Though opposing those Jewish Christians who required that Gentile Christians submit to Jewish Law, including circumcision, he believed Jewish Christians should continue loyalty to Jewish practice and piety, as he did himself. His piety and zeal for the Law had become a basis for various legends; thus, later traditions emphasize James’s piety and popularity with Jews and Jewish Christians. This popularity is evident in the Jews’ anger when priestly authorities had James put to death, reputedly either by stoning (after Flavius Josephus, historian of the Jews) or by being thrown from a Temple tower (after the early Christian writer St. Hegesippus). The early church designates him the first bishop of Jerusalem, though the title is not used in the New Testament. The tradition that he was the author of The Letter of James, a New Testament book of moral instructions, is not supported by modern scholarship." unquote.

    So, just who am I excommunicating and why?
    I don't know who you are quoting there but they seem ignorant of scripture. Paul does not mention James's conversion in 1 Corinthians 15:7. There is nothing to suggest he was not born again. This later stuff about tradition (which as far as I can tell is pulled out of your source's rear end, James was called the just according to Clement because of his outstanding virtue, even Wiki knows that)...well I thought you rejected tradition? Sola Scriptura and all that.

    Your attempt to diminish James is unscriptural. Your version of Christianity seems to contradict scripture. You don't seem to know how your religion's doctrinal questions are resolved.

    I must say if this thread was a competition between recent enthusiasms and Orthodox Christianity then it was a KO in the first round. Luckily its a calm celebration of the ancient and venerable Christian faith as expressed by its most enduring adherents.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •