Small Orthodox corner

[Prodromos]

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.

Sounds like you should convert to Eastern Orthodoxy

[Cyclops]

Sounds like you should convert to Eastern Orthodoxy

I have attended Orthodox mass and the antique ritual and mystic rhythms of the offices are immersive. As a vehicle for faith it must be a most complete experience, addressing and nurturing the spiritual, ethical and social aspects of Christian fellowship.

However I am not a believer and it would be cynical and hypocritical of me to profess a faith I do not hold.

I respect faith in God when I find it across all traditions, and I celebrate it too, I think it makes people strong and helps people be better. If you're a person of faith (and I think you've said you are) then that's a great thing, as is Basic's faith. If you are a Lutheran or a Baptist I have to say I really respect the revolt against much rusted on corruption that entails. Presbyterians enjoy a very sensible system of discipline (I saw a deceased relative's communion card recently, amazing). All the faiths are doing something right if they love God and try to follow Jesus' teachings, he was a great rabbi.

Misrepresenting scripture is another matter, if someone is straight up wrong about what scripture says I won't have a bar of it. The Bible is a venerable collation of faith texts from people trying to approach God. Its a disgrace to their memories and faith to misrepresent what they wrote, the books and passages of the Bible have been twisted in a most shameful way at times.

I also want to be corrected when I am wrong, happens a lot but I try to learn from it. I have lower respect for people who do not do the same.

[basics]

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.

Cyclops,

Paul writes the order of belief 1 Corinthians 15:5- 8. showing that James the brother of Jesus believed after the others. It was a vision of Christ to James that convicted him to believe well after Pentecost. The quote I gave you is from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. At one point as Mark writes 3:20-21 considered Jesus to be out of His mind that including James. Another quote, " Even at His death Jesus entrusted the care of His mother, Mary, not to His half brothers but to His disciple and close friend John (John 19:26-27). As The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia explains:

"A bond of fellowship had . . . been established between John and Mary that was closer than her nearer blood relationship with her own sons, who up to this time had regarded the course of Jesus with disapproval, and had no sympathy with his mission. In the home of John she would find consolation for her loss, as the memories of the wonderful life of her son would be recalled . . ." (1979, "Brothers of the Lord").

However, after Jesus' resurrection James and his brothers joined the company of believers, now convinced Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah and Son of God (Acts 1:14). A special appearance by Jesus to James, mentioned only in 1 Corinthians 15:7, probably played a major part in James' change of heart." unquote.

So I am sorry but I am not disparaging James in any way. In his letter or book I see all that James writes is for those that are born again to guide them on their paths. I believe that certain systems do not even recognise Jesus as having brothers and sisters which of course is quite unscriptural.

[Cyclops]

Cyclops,

Paul writes the order of belief 1 Corinthians 15:5- 8...

Paul writes of the order of appearance of the risen Christ, and in any case James is earlier on thelist than Paul, ipso facto his belief and being born again precede's pauls. Your own argument that James is not born again is not sustained by scripture.

The quote I gave you is from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. ...

The Encyclopaedia Britannica's argument at this poin seems like hogwash. Perhaps as an instrument of British identity it makes propaganda claims based on scriptural twisting for political purposes? IIRC the EB makes an utterly spurious claims about Henry VIII's use of scripture (I guess it is a British political project and bound to support the fat syphilitic sinner's desperate futile attempts to produce a fertile heir). Its all about context and flow old chap.

Once again, when the Anglican Christian community has a doctrinal question, how is it resolved? The Orthodox communities use the scriptural method of a council, attended by the (traditionally acknowledged) apostolic heirs.

[alhoon]

@Cyclops, if you think that Basics is reading your responses here and tries to address them by taking them into account, you'll often be disappointed. He speaks over you, not to you. That's the vanity I was talking about. He preaches from a podium, he doesn't discuss.

[basics]

Paul writes of the order of appearance of the risen Christ, and in any case James is earlier on thelist than Paul, ipso facto his belief and being born again precede's pauls. Your own argument that James is not born again is not sustained by scripture.



The Encyclopaedia Britannica's argument at this poin seems like hogwash. Perhaps as an instrument of British identity it makes propaganda claims based on scriptural twisting for political purposes? IIRC the EB makes an utterly spurious claims about Henry VIII's use of scripture (I guess it is a British political project and bound to support the fat syphilitic sinner's desperate futile attempts to produce a fertile heir). Its all about context and flow old chap.

Once again, when the Anglican Christian community has a doctrinal question, how is it resolved? The Orthodox communities use the scriptural method of a council, attended by the (traditionally acknowledged) apostolic heirs.

Cyclops,

Had James been born again he would never have sent men out to the churches that Paul had organised to make the Gentile converts be circumcised. It was not only Paul's affronting him but Jesus in vision to him that changed that man's mind. Up until then he was a strict Judaiser. As far as the Encyclopaedia Britannica is concerned it is no different in its opinion from the other Encyclopaedia I also quoted. Anyway spouting off about Henry viii has nothing to do with James.

Any community that has any doctrinal problems only has to refer to God's word, God's word, to find the answer.

[Cookiegod]

I thought basics was a baptist, and afaik they solve doctrinal debates through viewer ratings and donations to televangelists. Most efficient system ever. Much less corrupt than bishops, which as we all know is where everything went wrong.

[Prodromos]

I thought basics was a baptist, and afaik they solve doctrinal debates through viewer ratings and donations to televangelists. Most efficient system ever.

Beats doing it by burning "heretics" at the stake.

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men."

[Cyclops]

Beats doing it by burning "heretics" at the stake.

Yes the readiness of rulers to kill those not adopting the approved faith is a stain on the Christian past. Sadly a lot of those revolting against Rome ended up with blood on their hands (eg Calvin, the Anglicans, the Anabaptists etc).

Spurgeon's claims to direct apostolic descent are imaginative (and laudable from an aspirational point of view) but utterly unprovable. Its sounds almost boastful, although not as boastful as a typical Papal Bull. I guess he wants to stablish legitimacy in the face of (I have to admit, fairly persuasive) accusations of innovation from established churches.

Do Baptists use councils to decide points of faith and doctrine? I mean they differ from the Catholics and Protestants, and of course there are some egregious and unscriptural things to revolt from, but there is a smorgasbord of theological beliefs to choose from. I'm pretty sure Baptist belief has not remained static: true Scotsmen aside many Baptist ministries now allow women preachers, how was that decision arrived at?

My pretty skimpy understanding o Baptist theology is its a "broad church" (a very positive aspect in my irrelevant view). At their best the older churches have encompassed a lot of differing views (I think in Orthodoxy the principle is there are many ways to Jesus, I forget the maxim that expresses this) but there has of course been a tendency to create artificial choke points to control believers.

[basics]

Cyclops,

The Baptist church believes that baptism comes after believing whereas the Presbyterians believe in infant baptism. Other than that the Bible is still the primary source of knowledge about God. Of course there are rogue elements in both systems, the man who married us in the Auldearn Church of Scotland had to leave because of them. Sandy taught that baptism did not make a child or adult a Christian, rather a promise by the parents to bring their child up to know about Christ and so he was opposed by the higher ups and was forced to leave. Saying that one can see on YouTube RC Sproul, John MacArthur and Alistair Begg with the same belief and yet one is Presbyterian, the other Independent and the last a Baptist, the three standing solidly on Scripture.

So, the Baptist church is no broad church at all, not any of the ones I have attended over the years and the centre of every sermon I have heard is about what is written in the Bible, not what men have thought.

[AnthoniusII]

How modern Christian Dogmas can understand Christianity's fondamental principles when they can not accuratle translate Hellenistic Greek that the Christian Faith is writen on?
Even a tiny letter can not pronounve it correctly

and we ask people to fully undestand complicated meanings described by even more complicated words that only few can even read?

[Cookiegod]

Anthonius I'll be direct. For one you obviously don't know the linguistic background of the church. Which is not just Greek, but also other languages.

Secondly I'm pretty sure with all the "wisdom" you declare in the Hellenistic language it's highly unlikely you're all that aware of the differences between old and new Greek, or aware of any of the nuances when it comes to translation of the old testament, or all the contemporary issues that affected the various parts in the bible. I might be wrong on this one. Maybe you're THE expert on ancient greek and know all the intricacies of culture and politics the society in Palestine in the 1st century AD were faced with, or the wider issues faced in the various parts of the Roman world in the centuries after. But even then I know many Greeks that are not. And I know plenty of Greeks who have no issues to attend liturgies in other languages.

Third as we saw earlier in your post #261 were you made up "a proffesor of Religius Law about Orthodoxy" you don't really know all that much about dogmata in the orthodox church. Claiming that the patriarch of Constantinople has absolute powers is so hilariously wrong, not least because the honourary first place initially belonged to Rome and was only handed to Constantinople after the schism of 1054. The schism with Catholicism (apart from all the nonpolitical issues) precisely happened because one patriarch decided that the honourary first place surely must mean he can be a dictator over all. Which is . But IF it were one, Constantinople would have nowhere near as good a claim as Rome. Actually no claim whatsoever to be precise.

The fact that you can get even the most basic fact wrong about how the orthodox churches are organised, how decisions are made - not by a single pope, but by peers - pretty much sums it up for me, as much as the basic reality that obviously religion is a mere vehicle for you to transfer your ethnonationalism with.

The reality is that there's no need to speak or understand Greek to be a Christian, and that to assume that the Greek today is the same as a Greek in the 5th century is clearly and plainly wrong.

Many paths to orthodox Christianity exist, I know some that converted after discovering orthodox spirituality in Russian literature. I will freely admit that my posts aren't the best way to do so, as being a constant angry cookie probably doesn't reflect all that well. But heck. I'm not arguing out of a nationalist inferiority complex, nor am I trying to convert everyone else into a version of Christianity where the only cultural and temporal context to scripture that matters is Western Europe + America from the 16th century onward, rather than the world that was then.

[basics]

Cookiegod,

So, what are the many paths to Christianity? Jesus said that there is but one path and it is so narrow that few ever get in, so what are the many paths?

[Cookiegod]

you tell me first how lying about the bible and repeating that lie even after having been proven wrong gets you any closer to salvation.

[basics]

you tell me first how lying about the bible and repeating that lie even after having been proven wrong gets you any closer to salvation.

Cookiegod,

Then please write down the very words I supposedly spoke of being a lie?

[alhoon]

Cookiegod,

Then please write down the very words I supposedly spoke of being a lie?

That the bible says one must believe first to be baptized.

[AnthoniusII]

Anthonius I'll be direct. For one you obviously don't know the linguistic background of the church. Which is not just Greek, but also other languages.

Secondly I'm pretty sure with all the "wisdom" you declare in the Hellenistic language it's highly unlikely you're all that aware of the differences between old and new Greek, or aware of any of the nuances when it comes to translation of the old testament, or all the contemporary issues that affected the various parts in the bible. I might be wrong on this one. Maybe you're THE expert on ancient greek and know all the intricacies of culture and politics the society in Palestine in the 1st century AD were faced with, or the wider issues faced in the various parts of the Roman world in the centuries after. But even then I know many Greeks that are not. And I know plenty of Greeks who have no issues to attend liturgies in other languages.

Third as we saw earlier in your post #261 were you made up "a proffesor of Religius Law about Orthodoxy" you don't really know all that much about dogmata in the orthodox church. Claiming that the patriarch of Constantinople has absolute powers is so hilariously wrong, not least because the honourary first place initially belonged to Rome and was only handed to Constantinople after the schism of 1054. The schism with Catholicism (apart from all the nonpolitical issues) precisely happened because one patriarch decided that the honourary first place surely must mean he can be a dictator over all. Which is . But IF it were one, Constantinople would have nowhere near as good a claim as Rome. Actually no claim whatsoever to be precise.

The fact that you can get even the most basic fact wrong about how the orthodox churches are organised, how decisions are made - not by a single pope, but by peers - pretty much sums it up for me, as much as the basic reality that obviously religion is a mere vehicle for you to transfer your ethnonationalism with.

The reality is that there's no need to speak or understand Greek to be a Christian, and that to assume that the Greek today is the same as a Greek in the 5th century is clearly and plainly wrong.

Many paths to orthodox Christianity exist, I know some that converted after discovering orthodox spirituality in Russian literature. I will freely admit that my posts aren't the best way to do so, as being a constant angry cookie probably doesn't reflect all that well. But heck. I'm not arguing out of a nationalist inferiority complex, nor am I trying to convert everyone else into a version of Christianity where the only cultural and temporal context to scripture that matters is Western Europe + America from the 16th century onward, rather than the world that was then.

Obviously you know nothing about the official languages of the Roman Empire (when Ceasar said kae see tecnon Brute and not Sheakspear's Et tu Brute that was a myth). All the Rules from the first Ecumenical Counsil PRIMARILY writen in Hellenistic Greek beacuse -liike Snt Paul once said it was the only language that could descibe accuratly the meanings of the Faith). All Rules are writen in Hellenistic Greek , latins translations were accepted because they had no choice but always with the mark that they were incomplete. In 1180 a Bishop of Rome visited New Rome (Constantinople) and in his return he wrote "they speak the ral Latin Language not the one we talk and write in our lands"! So Roman-Catholic Church used a poor version of the official Latin Language because from 6th century and later Popes had no real Romanogreek education! That is why from the poor latin of the west so many herecies apeared untill today! Because people even if they know "modern" Latin they can not accuratly translate the Principals of the Christian Faith .It was not an accident that St Paul chosed Helelnistic Greek to teach in his travels even in the Rome its self. His letter to Romans is writen in Hellenistic Greek not latin.
EDIT: https://www.koutipandoras.gr/article...box=1638532296

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Obviously you know nothing about the official languages of the Roman Empire (when Ceasar said kae see tecnon Brute and not Sheakspear's Et tu Brute that was a myth).

Thats nonsense. It was an official language next to Latin only in the East, as even their aristocracy barely spoke any other language than Koine Greek. Naturally Caesar spoke koine greek, as he had studied Rhetoric in Rhodos like any other Roman from the Nobility, but his main language was Latin, as you simply can see on the fact that "De Bello Gallico" was written in Latin. As many other roman books about architecture, aquaeducts and military things. Koine Greek was more the language, which was used by roman poets like Ovid and roman philosophs like Seneca to understand the original hellenistic poems and works of the greek philosophs.

And even Ovid and Seneca wrote in Latin!

And which need would have Caesar as politician and military for poems and philosophy?

But this is another absurd claim of you like the claim in medieval Western Europe were no stone buildings earlier than 1456, when already many TWC users told you, thats plain wrong as we have buildings from Charlemagne from 8 century AD.

Please refrain from such claims in future, not for me, for you, because you make yourself ridiculous with such claims.

[AnthoniusII]

Thats nonsense. It was an official language next to Latin only in the East, as even their aristocracy barely spoke any other language than Koine Greek. Naturally Caesar spoke koine greek, as he had studied Rhetoric in Rhodos like any other Roman from the Nobility, but his main language was Latin, as you simply can see on the fact that "De Bello Gallico" was written in Latin. As many other roman books about architecture, aquaeducts and military things. Koine Greek was more the language, which was used by roman poets like Ovid and roman philosophs like Seneca to understand the original hellenistic poems and works of the greek philosophs.

And even Ovid and Seneca wrote in Latin!

And which need would have Caesar as politician and military for poems and philosophy?

But this is another absurd claim of you like the claim in medieval Western Europe were no stone buildings earlier than 1456, when already many TWC users told you, thats plain wrong as we have buildings from Charlemagne from 8 century AD.

Please refrain from such claims in future, not for me, for you, because you make yourself ridiculous with such claims.

Nonsense: The Seanate since day 1 had 2 (two) official languages and has been proven for over a century now.
The reasons:
Roman state was actually a confedaracy of two kind of cities:
a) The allies
b) The conquoered.
Since day one though the inhabidants of Latium plain had to trade inorder to survive and inorder to make alliences.
The ONE AND ONLY "linqua franca" of that era was the Greek/Hellen language. Hlaf of the first confederacy cities of the Roman states were Greek. So Senate ALWAYS wrote its laws bot in Greek and Latin.
The scholar that describe Ceasar's assasination was clear he addressed to Brutus in Greek! Why? Inside the Seanate's house a Dictator get's killed and he speaks to his assasisn in Greek?
Also when Romans followed the sea routes to India already found Greek trade cities in west India. There is a Roman Senator's report in GREEK that asks a question why the Roman State exports gold in India (india has no gold at all) for high prices spices!
Apostole Thomas prieched the Christianity in those Greco-Roman trade cities first before find his terible end! He spoke Hellenistic Greek also because Judaia was part of a hellenistic state before Romans conquer it!
If you do not belive me i would sugest you watch Pr Eugen Weber's 80's video teachings names teh Western Tradition.

Warch all the previus to Roma Rise and next to it about Byzantine Empire and you will understand what i am talking about.
Also watch this:

Activate english subs.
In all those video series you will understand why complicated meanings are not possible to be described in another language other than Greek. St Paul knew that. I do not expect you to think you are smarter than St Paul are you?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Thats BS.

The Romans didn't need greek to talk with the latin cities, obviously because of LATIN, nor with Etruscans, Sabinians, Umbrians, Samnites, Lucanians and Bruttians all italic people, which spoke italic languages, close related to Latin. They don't need greek to communicate with their Allies.

And their greek allies in Italy? Neglectable as they barely could stand on their own against Samnites, Lucanians and even Bruttians. So no need because of this few cities too.

And i don't accept some random YT videos from some greek Ultranationalists. They are scientific BS.

But go on with your rambling against the serious scientific facts about roman history of the absolute majority of serious historians.