My church defined your church's bible

[Inquiring Mind]

Yeah, well maybe he is trying to build an argument that being round and orange makes it the only fruit, and I can show green or purple fruits, and since the orange is not green or purple, it is not the only fruit.
Then we have a person who starts another thread where he says he doesn't believe in fruits at all come and argue for the guy trying to prove the orange is the only fruit. Hmmm...

You wouldn't be some sort of sock puppet, would you?

No. But then again, I don't know what you mean by sock puppet? Unless that mean you think Orthodox and I are the same person? You have missed the boat on that one.

I am intrigue by a subway train operator that writes with the knowledge of a Theology Professor. Plus you are here at all times during the day. So I can't believe you are really a subway train operator.

 

[Eric B]

I can be on more times in the day because of my phone with internet access. Really helps me keep up, during my breaks. (Was off today and yesterday anyway)

Still, I am sorry to be so suspicious, but you did promote yourself earlier one way, yet seems to be arguing a different way; much like a Catholic or Orthodox believer. I just read your defense of paid pastors, as well as your earlier discussion of bishops, and that doesn't sound like someone who does not believe in local church. (how can you even be Congregational Holiness, then?) So your "just me and a bible under a tree" sounded like a spoof of Sola scriptura, and is precisely the way orthodox, and other EOC advocates (who haven't been around) have caricatured it here.

So would you happen to be at least a Catholic or EOC advocate, or in independant converting to those churches?

 

[orthodox]

We were discussing (at your request) apostles (first generation or later), and those are leaders. Now you have changed back to "the Church".

There is a cycle between leaders and the Church. Leaders teach stuff, but the Church evaluates it according to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. The Church may accept what the leaders teach, or reject it.

Yes, this even includes apostles. Paul evaluated what Peter was doing in Galatians and rejected it. Why, because Paul had a personal opinion? No, because Peter was not following the traditions of the Church that had been passed onto one and all, and he found Peter wanting. The whole Church is the guardian of tradition, even though leaders have a special teaching position.

But again, as you acknowledge that there was error and dissension in the church (including issues like Easter), then you have to better clarify the infallible doctrine. You seem to say "anything they were all in consensus on", but that in itself does not prove truth, and lack of extant record is no proof there was no dissension on it.

I doesn't matter if there was at one point dissension. The question is whether is was resolved. "Whatever you bind on earth......"

You want every Christian to start all the way back at square one, with the result that everyone does what is good in their own eyes. However, individuals don't have the collective wisdom or knowledge of the entire body of Christ.

Most historians see the Church of the second to fourth centuries as then shaping its doctrine and practice. You try to project everything back to the apostles, or then perhaps grant the later Church the authority to bind new truth; though you reject Rome's equal claim to that.

You don't seem to be listening. The Church doesn't bind new truth. It only binds old truth, when there is dissension about what the truth is.

Rome can't make equal claim to it, because Rome is not the entire Church, Rome is just one Patriarchate.

Once again, you are generalizing claims to me I have never made. I am not arguing that the Baptists restored the early Church. That is not the point. The faith is in Christ, not "the historic Church",

You have a completely vertical Christianity that is completely foreign to the thinking of the Church. The Church is also horizontal. Christ didn't just found faith in him, he founded a Church praying that it would be one, just like he is one with the Father. Christianity is just as much about the body and its relationships to one another as it is about its relationship to the Head. The great commandment isn't just about loving God, it is also about loving each other. You cannot be one when every Christian has to start at square one, because most Christians can't even figure out what step 2 is, or how to get there, whether step 2 is the canon, the deity of Christ or whatever.

"the First Mob"? That's what you call the consensus of the Church; unless you are the one arguing that the truth was largely lost to most of the Christian world (like you charge the Baptists with claiming), unless you happened to be born in an EOC region.

But you are not the Church any more than the Marcionites were who only accepted Luke and Romans.

I did consider whether the extra books (both OT and NT) may have been valid, or whether some of the 66 (like Hebrews) may not have been, but there was no reason to question the canon I had.

You had no reason, but now I'm giving you a reason - Luther had no cause for removing books.

You think that is defenseless; well just try telling an atheist or some cult who questions the canon that you believe in your canon because "the historic Church" says so, and see what that means to them. As far as they're concerned, you believe in your church because "it makes sense to you", so you using this relative hypothesis on us does not prove anything.

We have a basis at least for claiming what we do. It is a historical fact that we have unbroken link to the early church, thus we can at least claim that we pass on the traditions concerning the canon. People can doubt sure, but you don't even have a basis. All you can say is this is what your sect believes.

What is "believing Israel"? A few Israelites who acepted Christ? Carnal Israel was all of physical Israel before Christ, and those who continued to reject Him (trusting in their physical lineage as saving them) afterwards. The Law was clearly for carnal Israel, not for the Church.

We're not talking about the law, we're talking about the right way to worship God.

 

[orthodox]

Dox

You missed the obvious . . . real answer (not an option). Elements of New Testament Christianity were to be found during the first 1500 years of the Church in the Catholic Churches (dont' you love latin monikers just a little).

The True Church continued through the ministry of individual believers that continued to practice what the God taught through Jesus and the Apostles.

Until whoever founded the modern Baptist Church.

If you are saying these individual believers weren't orthodox, then your theory suffers from the downside that it is completely untrue.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Yes! 'Our' Protestants' Bible is the translation of the RCC Erasmus' Textus Receptus; but translated by that man of God accursed by the RCC, and persecuted and killed by the RCC for it! And what is more, 'Our' Protestants' Bible has been made the subject of everyone's scrutiny and critique - of believers and of infidels --- which all has been for the BETTER, until this day.

I have found the best way to discover the truth of the Bible, is to compare -side by side- this old Bible form the TR with these new 'Bibles' mainly from the RCC-dominated 'committees' and 'societies' and what have you --- unscrupulously out to corrupt it!

 

[orthodox]

Yes! 'Our' Protestants' Bible is the translation of the RCC Erasmus' Textus Receptus; but translated by that man of God accursed by the RCC, and persecuted and killed by the RCC for it!

I'm not quite sure how this is on topic, but Erasmus wasn't killed by the RCC, he lived to the age of 70.

And what is more, 'Our' Protestants' Bible has been made the subject of everyone's scrutiny and critique - of believers and of infidels --- which all has been for the BETTER, until this day.

I have found the best way to discover the truth of the Bible, is to compare -side by side- this old Bible form the TR with these new 'Bibles' mainly from the RCC-dominated 'committees' and 'societies' and what have you --- unscrupulously out to corrupt it!

Huh. They are all translated from Orthodox manuscripts, so what do I care?

 

[El_Guero]

If they are not God's documents does any of this matter?

 

[Eric B]

There is a cycle between leaders and the Church. Leaders teach stuff, but the Church evaluates it according to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. The Church may accept what the leaders teach, or reject it.

Yes, this even includes apostles. Paul evaluated what Peter was doing in Galatians and rejected it. Why, because Paul had a personal opinion? No, because Peter was not following the traditions of the Church that had been passed onto one and all, and he found Peter wanting. The whole Church is the guardian of tradition, even though leaders have a special teaching position.

I doesn't matter if there was at one point dissension. The question is whether is was resolved. "Whatever you bind on earth......"

You want every Christian to start all the way back at square one, with the result that everyone does what is good in their own eyes. However, individuals don't have the collective wisdom or knowledge of the entire body of Christ.

You don't seem to be listening. The Church doesn't bind new truth. It only binds old truth, when there is dissension about what the truth is.

Rome can't make equal claim to it, because Rome is not the entire Church, Rome is just one Patriarchate.

Paul used plain reason in that case, not some consensus of the Church, as if they could vote that an apostle could live as a Gentile while teaching Gentiles to live as Jews. This would be one of those truths already bound in Heaven, and the apostle relayed it, not decided it.
People do what is right in their own eyes, because they approach the Bible (the hard copy of the truth of the church) with preconceived biases. Just feeding everyone prepackaged "truth" will not solve that problem.
And correct, Rome is not the whole Church, but then neither is the EOC or even the EOC and Rome together. In areas like that where we don;t agree, the solution is not to reject all the others and claim your particular denomination is the only true Church.

You have a completely vertical Christianity that is completely foreign to the thinking of the Church. The Church is also horizontal. Christ didn't just found faith in him, he founded a Church praying that it would be one, just like he is one with the Father. Christianity is just as much about the body and its relationships to one another as it is about its relationship to the Head. The great commandment isn't just about loving God, it is also about loving each other. You cannot be one when every Christian has to start at square one, because most Christians can't even figure out what step 2 is, or how to get there, whether step 2 is the canon, the deity of Christ or whatever.

That "vertical Christianity" thing is a red herring. I do not deny the horizontal aspect of the faith, or that it is about the body. This discussion has nothing to do with loving each other, but it is hard to have that when some rise up claiming they are the only true Christians. But what I said was the object of faith is Christ. The Church is not equal to Christ, the Lord of the Church.

But you are not the Church any more than the Marcionites were who only accepted Luke and Romans.

You had no reason, but now I'm giving you a reason - Luther had no cause for removing books.

We have a basis at least for claiming what we do. It is a historical fact that we have unbroken link to the early church, thus we can at least claim that we pass on the traditions concerning the canon. People can doubt sure, but you don't even have a basis. All you can say is this is what your sect believes.

So basically, the entire Church outside the EOC is like the Marcionites, rather than being that body of people who can disagree with leaders and with other churches. Only because you can trace your organization and its offices back to the early Church. But Rome can too, so that does not prove truth. Someone changed, somewhere! And unbroken link did not prevent that. And it still means nothing to anyone who wants to question your canon. From what I have seen, even you all hardly even uses those books anymore. (The RCC can find purgatory in them, though!) There was reason to question them. It was not just some "sect" like the Marcionites, but rather a large section of Christ's body. But you only use that concept when convenient for your group. Once again, did God continue to preserve His body overall, or did He let a large chunk of it fall away?
You keep denying it is about an organization and leaders; it is supposed to be about the people, yet why can't you stop judging the Church along the lines of this organization and the teachings of its leaders? The Church has a lot of disagreements. Trying to narrow it down to one organization being the only true one is not the solution, but apart of the very sectarianism you criticize! The problem is not me being vertical only, but you being horizontal only.

We're not talking about the law, we're talking about the right way to worship God.

The physical tabernacle we were discussing was constructed under the Law.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Yes! 'Our' Protestants' Bible is the translation of the RCC Erasmus' Textus Receptus; but translated by that man of God accursed by the RCC, and persecuted and killed by the RCC for it! And what is more, 'Our' Protestants' Bible has been made the subject of everyone's scrutiny and critique - of believers and of infidels --- which all has been for the BETTER, until this day.

I have found the best way to discover the truth of the Bible, is to compare -side by side- this old Bible form the TR with these new 'Bibles' mainly from the RCC-dominated 'committees' and 'societies' and what have you --- unscrupulously out to corrupt it!

This man doth not know history, he must've been sitting in Satan's classroom of Historical Theology:laugh: You hath no knowledge to know that Erasmus died of natural causes.

There is nothing worse than Satan then a Protestant that can not even quote proper history (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/erasmus.html)

excerpt from same page

In 1516 was published his annotated New Testament, virtually the first Greek text, and in 1519 his edition on St. Jerome in nine folio volumes. In both of these works the aim of Erasmus was to introduce a more rational conception of Christian doctrine, and to emancipate men's minds from the frivolous and pedantic methods of the Scholastic theologians. But when the Lutheran revolution came he found himself in the most embarrassing position. Those of the old order fell upon him as the author of all the new troubles. The Lutherans assailed him for his cowardice and inconsistency in refusing to follow up his opinions to their legitimate conclusions. In 1521 he left Louvain, where the champions of the old faith had made his stay unendurable and with the exception of six years in Freiburg, he spent the rest of his life at Basel.

 

[Eliyahu]

Mother of God is the English translation of theotokos, meaning "God bearer" or "the one who bears God". The term was invented to distinguish those who believed Christ wasn't born God, but became God later on. These folks wanted to say Mary was the Christokos - Christ bearer. But the Church said no, Christ was always God, thus Mary bore God.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

Do you find anyone in the Bible calls Mary as Mother of God?
Elizabeth called her Mother of my Lord, not God.
Christ was God before the Creation, before came into her body.
Christ was the Creator of Mary, and Mary was the sinner needing a Savior ( Luke 1:47)
The reason why Bible doesn't use the term Mother of God is because Mother has the meaning of Pre-existence and the Producer. If you call Mary as Mother of God, it sounds like Mary existed before God, produced God. That's why Bible doesn't use such term.
Mother of Lord is used because the word, Lord was used for any superior person, e.g. when Sarah called Abraham, she called Lord ( Adonai)
Nobody denied the Deity of Christ when they denied Theotokos.
Also Theotokos has another problem with Trinity, because Mary was not the mother of God the Father, nor of God the Holy Spirit.
How is the relationship between Holy Spirit and Mary ?
Are they Mother and Son ? NOpe! then what ? God and the mortal human being!
If you call Mary as Mother of God but deny mother of God the Father, then you are denying God the father is God ! So you are in trouble with Trinity.

How do you call Mary's father? Was he God's grandfather ?
Do you call Joseph God's mother's husband ?
Jesus had his brother James, then do you call James God's Brother ?
Do you call David God's Ancestor ?
Orthodox sounds like Polytheists !
God's ancestor committed the first sin, right ? Does Orthodox teach that way ? Orthodox god's ancestor brought the sin into this world ?

Wow, the arrogance is astonishing. Firstly you want to tell us what WE believe. Do we go around telling you what you believe?

Secondly, you deny that veneration and respect are the same thing, yet the dictionary tells otherwise:

venerate: "To regard with respect" - American Heritage Dictionary.
venerate: "regard with feelings of respect" - Princeton University Wordnet

Your arrogance is astonishing!
Do you trust in dictionary more than the Bible ?
So, does Orthodox believe in the dictionaries?
If anyone respect any dead person as Supernatural Being, or deity, then it is Idol Worship! full stop.
Does the dictionary define what is Idol Worship by comparing Respect and Veneration ?

<sigh> A completely different context that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. What I showed you was a context that talked about God dwelling between the Cherabim, which is an extremely obvious reference to the ark, followed in the same Psalm with the command to bow down.

So you bow down to the enemies ? Wow!

Hello? There was no cross in the old testament. If you think the holy hill is the cross, then you'd better bow down and venerate the cross.

Do you know that Redemption existed since Genesis 3 after Adam and Eve committed sins? All the time the shadow of Cross redeemed the people. Orthodox do not know this !
All the offerings and sacrifices in Leviticus meant the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Orthodox do not know this. How could they go to the heaven ?

Exactly! It was an icon for God.

Until Jesus came into this world. Since then, after Jesus suffered at the Cross, we don't need the Ark of Covenant. Holy Spirit dwells within us.

Did God instruct you to make photos of your family??

I noticed BTW that you weaseled your way out of answering my question. When you read the gospels do you picture in your mind's eye Jesus and the apostles doing whatever the Book says they did??? Are you an iconographer of the heart?

When I read the Bible and survey the wondrous Cross, I can imagine the scenes and think about them, which change my heart and my thinking. It just helps me with stronger faith all the time.

I don't carry any photo of my family. You cannot excuse Idolatry by likening it to carrying photos. Idol worshippers excused that way all the time. But when you stand in front of the Judgment Seat, you will be speechless. Your arrogance will find nowhere to hide yourself!

You will be condemned as a Idol Worshipper, goddess worshipper!

 

[orthodox]

Do you find anyone in the Bible calls Mary as Mother of God?
Elizabeth called her Mother of my Lord, not God.

What's the difference? You want to split Christ in two and say Mary bore only one nature of Christ?

Christ was God before the Creation, before came into her body.
Christ was the Creator of Mary, and Mary was the sinner needing a Savior ( Luke 1:47)
The reason why Bible doesn't use the term Mother of God is because Mother has the meaning of Pre-existence and the Producer. If you call Mary as Mother of God, it sounds like Mary existed before God, produced God.

What you think it sounds like is irrelevant. It doesn't mean that. We defined the term, we'll say what it means and doesn't mean, and the confusion of some protestants 1500 years later is due to their ignorance, due to them not being instructed in the Church.

Nobody denied the Deity of Christ when they denied Theotokos.

Uh, yes they did. Clearly you are ignorant of Church history.

Also Theotokos has another problem with Trinity, because Mary was not the mother of God the Father, nor of God the Holy Spirit.

That's right she wasn't, and your feigned ignorance is again, irrelevant.

Your arrogance is astonishing!
Do you trust in dictionary more than the Bible ?
So, does Orthodox believe in the dictionaries?

Huh??!?!? If we say that we do a certain thing, then we get to define what we believe, we get to define our own terms. In point of fact itt doesn't matter what the dictionary says, but I just pointed out that you venerate the saints just like we do, as you already admitted when we see the dictionary.

If anyone respect any dead person as Supernatural Being, or deity, then it is Idol Worship! full stop.

Fine, but we don't do that. Glad we could put you straight.

Does the dictionary define what is Idol Worship by comparing Respect and Veneration ?

They mean the same!! You venerate the saints, stop begin a hypocrite.

When I read the Bible and survey the wondrous Cross, I can imagine the scenes and think about them,

Ah huh! So you picture them and then you venerate them. Ahhh, the hypocrisy.

Idol worshippers excused that way all the time.

Nonsense. Idol worshippers weren't carrying family pictures, it's a completely different thing.

 

[orthodox]

Paul used plain reason in that case, not some consensus of the Church, as if they could vote that an apostle could live as a Gentile while teaching Gentiles to live as Jews. This would be one of those truths already bound in Heaven, and the apostle relayed it, not decided it.

Paul acted as an individual BY FOLLOWING THE TRADITION. It's nothing to do with voting, it is to do with individuals upholding the tradition. He didn't sit down with Peter examining what the scriptures said, because if anything the scriptures would have supported following the OT law.

People do what is right in their own eyes, because they approach the Bible (the hard copy of the truth of the church) with preconceived biases.

Whatever. If you believe that, that's fine. So guess what? You, me and the other guy all have our biases, so you and your bible under a tree aren't solving anything. Thanks for proving my point.

Just feeding everyone prepackaged "truth" will not solve that problem.

It does solve the problem, because the truth is written on the hearts of the Church by the Spirit, so a real person can explain the truth much better than a book which isn't interactive. It's like a computer manual vs a computer expert. The manual might be the authority, but the average person is more guaranteed to get the help they need with a real person. If it were not so, you wouldn't have sermons.

And correct, Rome is not the whole Church, but then neither is the EOC or even the EOC and Rome together.

But the EOC and Rome WERE the whole church, that is the point. That's why I say to follow the Church where it agreed prior to the schism, because the Spirit promised to lead the Church into all truth. When the church became divided, keep following what the Church decided when it was One, because that is the only way to be One. There is no hope to be one with 5000 protestant denominations.

In areas like that where we don;t agree, the solution is not to reject all the others and claim your particular denomination is the only true Church.

And by what authority do you preach that gospel?

That "vertical Christianity" thing is a red herring. I do not deny the horizontal aspect of the faith, or that it is about the body. This discussion has nothing to do with loving each other, but it is hard to have that when some rise up claiming they are the only true Christians. But what I said was the object of faith is Christ. The Church is not equal to Christ, the Lord of the Church.

Like all bodies, the Church carries out the wishes of the Head. If you deny what the body does, you deny the Head that commands it and binds on earth what is bound in heaven. And you're still weaseling out of that scripture.

So basically, the entire Church outside the EOC is like the Marcionites, rather than being that body of people who can disagree with leaders and with other churches. Only because you can trace your organization and its offices back to the early Church. But Rome can too, so that does not prove truth. Someone changed, somewhere! And unbroken link did not prevent that.

Sure, people are changing all the time, and when they do they end up outside the Church. The aim is to remain in the Church. The Church is that which does not change its doctrine because the truth doesn't change.

And it still means nothing to anyone who wants to question your canon. From what I have seen, even you all hardly even uses those books anymore. (The RCC can find purgatory in them, though!) There was reason to question them.

Remind me what the reason was again? The KJV was printed with it in, then faceless persons unknown removed it. Why?

It was not just some "sect" like the Marcionites, but rather a large section of Christ's body. But you only use that concept when convenient for your group. Once again, did God continue to preserve His body overall, or did He let a large chunk of it fall away?

God doesn't force anybody to fall away. The fullness of truth is still here when one has the humility to go searching. "He who seeks, finds".

You keep denying it is about an organization and leaders; it is supposed to be about the people, yet why can't you stop judging the Church along the lines of this organization and the teachings of its leaders?

Again with the leaders!!! The problem is not your not following our leaders, it is you not following the Church of God's teachings.

The Church has a lot of disagreements. Trying to narrow it down to one organization being the only true one is not the solution, but apart of the very sectarianism you criticize! The problem is not me being vertical only, but you being horizontal only.

Again with the "one organisation" which I already rejected!!! The reason only some organisations are the Church is because there is only one truth. Trying to reduce the truth to just a single proposition "have faith in Christ", is a denial of Truth. Not that I want to minimise the importance of that proposition, it is fundamental. But it's not the whole truth.

The physical tabernacle we were discussing was constructed under the Law.

You're grasping.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Nestorian Heresy History lessons:

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Nestorian+heresy

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm

short description:

Christian heresy that held Jesus to be two distinct persons, closely and inseparably united. In 428, Emperor Theodosius II named an abbot of Antioch, Nestorius (d. 451?), as patriarch of Constantinople. In that year Nestorius, who had been a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia, outraged the Christian world by opposing the use of the title Mother of God for the Virgin on the grounds that, while the Father begot Jesus as God, Mary bore him as a man. This view was contradicted by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, and both sides appealed to Pope Celestine I. The Council of Ephesus (see Ephesus, Council of) was convened in 431 to settle the matter. This council (reinforced by the Council of Chalcedon in 451) clarified orthodox Catholic doctrine, pronouncing that Jesus, true God and true man, has two distinct natures that are inseparably joined in one person and partake of the one divine substance. Nestorius, deposed after the Council of Ephesus, was sent to Antioch, to Arabia, and finally to Egypt. A work believed to be by Nestorius, Bazaar of Heraclides, discovered c.1895, gives an account of the controversy. The patriarch of Antioch and his bishops, accusing Cyril of unscrupulous action, stayed out of communion with Alexandria until a compromise was reached in 433, but though the subject was discussed in 553 at the Second Council of Constantinople (see Constantinople, Second Council of), Nestorianism was practically dead in the empire after 451. Nestorianism survived outside the Roman Empire through missionary expansion into Arabia, China, and India from the 6th cent., but declined after 1300. The doctrines that continued in the Nestorian Church had diminishing connections with those of Nestorius. The teachings of Eutyches and Monophysitism developed partially in reaction to Nestorianism. J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (1971); and R. Norris, ed. and tr., The Christological Controversy (1980).

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Eric B said: People do what is right in their own eyes, because they approach the Bible (the hard copy of the truth of the church) with preconceived biases.

Eric B you come to the Bible with the preconcieved notion that the EOC is wrong. So in effect this quote is not considered:

If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense." M.R. DeHaan

you infacto do seek another sense to disprove the EOC notion.

The quote thus becomes this instead:

"If the literal sense makes EOC, seek another sense, lest it result in nonsense." M.R. DeHaan

 

[Eric B]

You who came with the preconceived notion that all Churches are wrong!
Could you answer my earlier question, being the one who elsewhere affirmed orthodox's "Me and My Bible under a tree"? (Which he repeated again, above) Are you EOC?
Why do you defend the EOC if you are a Congregational Holiness who doesn't even believe in a local Church?
(And if I'm starting with a preconceived notion, why should I just listen to anyone who comes andsays "only my Chrch is the true Church? I f I did, I would have been suckered into the Church of Christ or sabbathkeeping Church of God long time ago.)

 

[Eric B]

Paul acted as an individual BY FOLLOWING THE TRADITION. It's nothing to do with voting, it is to do with individuals upholding the tradition. He didn't sit down with Peter examining what the scriptures said, because if anything the scriptures would have supported following the OT law.

The point there was Peter's double life. He was not really following the Law, only putting on a show in front of Jews, as if the OT really supported his behavior, and now Paul came with "tradition" that overrides it. And why is it not about voting? You said the entire Church decided these matters, and could oppose the leaders, even.

Whatever. If you believe that, that's fine. So guess what? You, me and the other guy all have our biases, so you and your bible under a tree aren't solving anything. Thanks for proving my point.

It does solve the problem, because the truth is written on the hearts of the Church by the Spirit, so a real person can explain the truth much better than a book which isn't interactive. It's like a computer manual vs a computer expert. The manual might be the authority, but the average person is more guaranteed to get the help they need with a real person. If it were not so, you wouldn't have sermons.

So now you bring the Spirit into it. I thought it was just a matter of just believing whatever you were taught. If the Spirit can do that, then the Spirit could also guide other Christians outside this one denomination, and still, men's judgments can still cloud the Spirit's guidance leading to dissension.
In many cases, it is not a matter of explaining the book, it is the person adding things that are not there, and only claining it is a separate tradition from what is there. It's like if I have a Windows system, and a Mac technician comes and tells me it's a Mac, regardless of what I see in the manual, or in the program itslef. He then stakes his claim of being an older computer company.

But the EOC and Rome WERE the whole church, that is the point. That's why I say to follow the Church where it agreed prior to the schism, because the Spirit promised to lead the Church into all truth. When the church became divided, keep following what the Church decided when it was One, because that is the only way to be One. There is no hope to be one with 5000 protestant denominations.

That's what you earlier called the lowest common denominator. Only problem, if the Church (or part of it) changed at that point and afterward (for there to be a split), it could have been changing before that (up to that point) as well.

And by what authority do you preach that gospel?

1Cor.1:12-13, where Paul criticizes division, including those who claim to be be the true follwers of Christ. The entire Church has erred here, so for one to claim "we are the true one" simply perpetuates the very problem.

Like all bodies, the Church carries out the wishes of the Head. If you deny what the body does, you deny the Head that commands it and binds on earth what is bound in heaven. And you're still weaseling out of that scripture.

Sure, people are changing all the time, and when they do they end up outside the Church. The aim is to remain in the Church. The Church is that which does not change its doctrine because the truth doesn't change.

God doesn't force anybody to fall away. The fullness of truth is still here when one has the humility to go searching. "He who seeks, finds".

Again with the leaders!!! The problem is not your not following our leaders, it is you not following the Church of God's teachings.

Again with the "one organisation" which I already rejected!!! The reason only some organisations are the Church is because there is only one truth. Trying to reduce the truth to just a single proposition "have faith in Christ", is a denial of Truth. Not that I want to minimise the importance of that proposition, it is fundamental. But it's not the whole truth.

You're jumping all over the place here. You keep saying "not the leaders, not the organization", "it's their teaching" the people can decide; no the people only follow the tradition, etc. yet an institution, is clearly what you are advocating regardless of how many "organizations" you count within it. (what entity embodies and maintains this teaching but the institution and its leaders?) Also, because you keep counting our organizations and claim they are a barrier to unity, so organizations must be a determining factor in unity. So it's a group of people defined purely by certain teachings, which are the truth because they all agree on them, and can trace their institution back to the early Church.
No truth is ever established on "we're the oldest group", and "we have never changed" (which is highly doubtful anyway). There is more truth beyond just a declaration of faith in Christ, but that does not prove that everything your church teaches is all the truth and that you have not added things to it. "Bind on earth" was spoken to the original apostles who had to establish the new faith. There is no promise there that their "successors" for millennia to come would have that same authority. You are projecting things there, and right away it contradicts your claim that it is not about the leaders, because if you take Christ's statement that way, then it would be all about the leaders, because that is who He was speaking to. That's why you keep going back and forth from leaders to the people back to the leaders even while denying it.
I also didn't say God forced anyone to fall away, but by narrowing "the truth" down to your particular sectarian denominational distinctives, then God allowed most of the Church to fall away, which your view always denies could happen when confronting the "underground Church" theory. The "heresies" were always small and died out eventually. Not the Church dividing in half. (And then a larger half dividing even more, and only the less known group being the true one). So a person born in a Christian culture where there is no EOC then has to do all of this searching through history to find Christ (that's not what Christ meant by "seek and you shall find", becuase we are also told "and He be NOT FAR from each of you", meaning it is a spiritual search, not a historical one. However, the "search history" argument is what is used by underground Church theorists such as the sabbathkeepers!)
So if you realy believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church, then as av1611 earlier said, He uses one group up to a point, (which doesn't necessarily mean that this group is 100% correct on everything) and when it crosses a certain line, then He raises people to challenge it. All of us have followed the Spirit in some areas, and ignored Him and followed their own traditions in other areas. This is the cause of disunity, and saying "no, God's group is only 100% correct in everything, and it's my group", only makes the problem worse.

Remind me what the reason was again? The KJV was printed with it in, then faceless persons unknown removed it. Why?

All of the reasons against the Apocrypha are a separate issue in itself, and I do not remember the all of them right now, but I can look into that again when I get a chance. That actually isn't the main point, because I could believe in them (like the RCC), and you still not be satisfied with that.

You're grasping.

No you are on that point (the OT Law).

 

[Eliyahu]

Nestorian Heresy History lessons:

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Nestorian+heresy

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm

short description:

Christian heresy that held Jesus to be two distinct persons, closely and inseparably united. In 428, Emperor Theodosius II named an abbot of Antioch, Nestorius (d. 451?), as patriarch of Constantinople. In that year Nestorius, who had been a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia, outraged the Christian world by opposing the use of the title Mother of God for the Virgin on the grounds that, while the Father begot Jesus as God, Mary bore him as a man. This view was contradicted by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, and both sides appealed to Pope Celestine I. The Council of Ephesus (see Ephesus, Council of) was convened in 431 to settle the matter. This council (reinforced by the Council of Chalcedon in 451) clarified orthodox Catholic doctrine, pronouncing that Jesus, true God and true man, has two distinct natures that are inseparably joined in one person and partake of the one divine substance. Nestorius, deposed after the Council of Ephesus, was sent to Antioch, to Arabia, and finally to Egypt. A work believed to be by Nestorius, Bazaar of Heraclides, discovered c.1895, gives an account of the controversy. The patriarch of Antioch and his bishops, accusing Cyril of unscrupulous action, stayed out of communion with Alexandria until a compromise was reached in 433, but though the subject was discussed in 553 at the Second Council of Constantinople (see Constantinople, Second Council of), Nestorianism was practically dead in the empire after 451. Nestorianism survived outside the Roman Empire through missionary expansion into Arabia, China, and India from the 6th cent., but declined after 1300. The doctrines that continued in the Nestorian Church had diminishing connections with those of Nestorius. The teachings of Eutyches and Monophysitism developed partially in reaction to Nestorianism. J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (1971); and R. Norris, ed. and tr., The Christological Controversy (1980).

There has been much misunderstanding about Nestorius.
As you mentioned, the documents discovered in 1895, Bazaar Heracleides proves it as he mentions Jesus Christ is one person, with 2 natures.
But you condemn him as saying 2 persons in Jesus Christ, which is untrue.

The points are like this:
1) Nestorius claimed Jesus is one person with 2 natures, human and divine, and Mary is the mother for the human nature, not for the divine nature.

2) Cyril was quite political, his uncle suppressed the protesters cruelly, Cyril paid the bribery to the sister of Theodosius, the Emperor

3) The Council of Ephesus was not the international conference represented by the churches all over the world, but Cyril brought ca 50 assistants, Nestorius brought 17, and Bishop of Rome sent a few, Jerusalem church didn't attend there, a few from among Emperor's servants.

4) The council was held in Ephesus where the worshippers of goddess Artemis were screaming for declaring Mary as mother of god !

5) All the documents remaining are mostly forged by Cyril and Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic invented new theory which Nesotrius never asserted, as if he claimed at the conference.

6) Nestorius was from Antioch and was trained there where Paul, Baranabas preached and based their missionary, while Cyril was from Alexandria, where the paganism, idolatry, modification of Bible, solar worshippers are prosperous.

7) Nestorius stance was quite correct and therefore the Council of Chalcedon accepted his view in reality. Nestorius himself condemned the people who claim the 2 persons in Jesus Christ.

8) We must remember that Mother of God theory split the Godheads into 3 pieces which is apparently contradicting Trinity.

By saying Mary as Mother of God, it denies God the Father is God, because Mary is not the mother of God the Father!, nor mother of God the Holy Spirit, which are in one according to the Trinity, Tri-Unity.

How is the relationship between God the Father and Mary?
Is Mary God the Son's Mother and therefore Wife of God the Father ?
How is the relationship between Mary and God the Holy Spirit ? Is she the stepmother of God the Holy Spirit ?

All the theory sounds like Greek myths or pagan polytheiests.

This site may explain some of the points fairly well:

http://www.oxuscom.com/theology.htm

http://moses.creighton.edu/okeefe/THL531/projects02/Christolgy5thC/Introduction_files/Nestorius.htm


This proves that Roman Catholic often accused the true believers of the Heresies which they never claimed at that time, then RC destroyed all the documents about them.
However, some literatures survived and tell the truth as Bazaar Heracleides does now. We must avoid condemning the people for what they didn't claim.

Nobody in the Bible calls Mary as Mother of God ! Try to figure out why!

 

[Inquiring Mind]

You who came with the preconceived notion that all Churches are wrong!
Could you answer my earlier question, being the one who elsewhere affirmed orthodox's "Me and My Bible under a tree"? (Which he repeated again, above) Are you EOC?
Why do you defend the EOC if you are a Congregational Holiness who doesn't even believe in a local Church?
(And if I'm starting with a preconceived notion, why should I just listen to anyone who comes andsays "only my Chrch is the true Church? I f I did, I would have been suckered into the Church of Christ or sabbathkeeping Church of God long time ago.)

Eric B said: People do what is right in their own eyes, because they approach the Bible (the hard copy of the truth of the church) with preconceived biases.

People come to the Bible with the preconcieved notion that the EOC or the RCC is wrong. So in effect this quote is not considered:

Quote: If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense." M.R. DeHaan

people infacto seek another sense to disprove the EOC notion or the RCC notion.

The quote thus becomes this instead:

Quote:
"If the literal sense makes EOC or makes RCC, seek another sense, lest it result in acknowledgement of the said."

Better

 

[Inquiring Mind]

There has been much misunderstanding about Nestorius.
As you mentioned, the documents discovered in 1895, Bazaar Heracleides proves it as he mentions Jesus Christ is one person, with 2 natures.
But you condemn him as saying 2 persons in Jesus Christ, which is untrue.

The points are like this:
1) Nestorius claimed Jesus is one person with 2 natures, human and divine, and Mary is the mother for the human nature, not for the divine nature.

2) Cyril was quite political, his uncle suppressed the protesters cruelly, Cyril paid the bribery to the sister of Theodosius, the Emperor

3) The Council of Ephesus was not the international conference represented by the churches all over the world, but Cyril brought ca 50 assistants, Nestorius brought 17, and Bishop of Rome sent a few, Jerusalem church didn't attend there, a few from among Emperor's servants.

4) The council was held in Ephesus where the worshippers of goddess Artemis were screaming for declaring Mary as mother of god !

5) All the documents remaining are mostly forged by Cyril and Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic invented new theory which Nesotrius never asserted, as if he claimed at the conference.

6) Nestorius was from Antioch and was trained there where Paul, Baranabas preached and based their missionary, while Cyril was from Alexandria, where the paganism, idolatry, modification of Bible, solar worshippers are prosperous.

7) Nestorius stance was quite correct and therefore the Council of Chalcedon accepted his view in reality. Nestorius himself condemned the people who claim the 2 persons in Jesus Christ.

8) We must remember that Mother of God theory split the Godheads into 3 pieces which is apparently contradicting Trinity.

By saying Mary as Mother of God, it denies God the Father is God, because Mary is not the mother of God the Father!, nor mother of God the Holy Spirit, which are in one according to the Trinity, Tri-Unity.

How is the relationship between God the Father and Mary?
Is Mary God the Son's Mother and therefore Wife of God the Father ?
How is the relationship between Mary and God the Holy Spirit ? Is she the stepmother of God the Holy Spirit ?

All the theory sounds like Greek myths or pagan polytheiests.

This site may explain some of the points fairly well:

http://www.oxuscom.com/theology.htm

http://moses.creighton.edu/okeefe/THL531/projects02/Christolgy5thC/Introduction_files/Nestorius.htm

This proves that Roman Catholic often accused the true believers of the Heresies which they never claimed at that time, then RC destroyed all the documents about them.
However, some literatures survived and tell the truth as Bazaar Heracleides does now. We must avoid condemning the people for what they didn't claim.

Nobody in the Bible calls Mary as Mother of God ! Try to figure out why!

Nobody in the Bible calls the God Head the Trinity either.

Nobody in the Bible calls Mary as Mother of God ! Try to figure out why!

Are you sure?

Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Mother of my Lord?

Jesus is the Lord in question.
Jesus is God.

Mother of my God.

The word used for Lord:

G2962 kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.

Just about everywhere in the New Testament, Lord means either Jesus(God the Son) or God the Father.


Principal errors

Nestorius rejected the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation by implicitly denying the hypostatic union of human and divine natures in the one divine person of Jesus. This denial was characterized notably by the rejection of the title "Theotokos" ("God bearer" or "Mother of God") for the mother of Jesus. He claimed that Mary was the mother of Christ's human nature but not the mother of God and concluded that only Jesus the man suffered and died on the cross.

History

From the definitions and condemnations of the Arian heresy of the fourth century several things resulted. The divinity of Christ and the reality of his Incarnation were clearly established in the minds of the faithful. Consequently, the exaltation and veneration of Mary by the faithful became more widespread. Since Jesus was truly God and Mary was his mother, she was venerated with the title of Theotokos. This veneration was especially popular in the East.

Controversy erupted in 428 when Nestorius, the newly installed bishop of Constantinople, attacked the title Theotokos from the pulpit in the cathedral on Christmas day, claiming that Mary was the mother of Christ but not the mother of God. He stated that to call Mary the Mother of God implied that the divine nature was born of a woman, thus making her a goddess.

Immediately his teaching was attacked by the laity and the clergy of Constantinople. When word spread of this new doctrine, neighboring bishops condemned him outright. Chief among his critics was bishop Cyril of Alexandria who responded, "I am astonished that the question should ever have been raised as to whether the Holy Virgin should be called Mother of God, for it really amounts to asking, is her Son God or is he not?" He wrote to Nestorius condemning the heretical aspects of his doctrine and asking him to explain and defend himself. The reply betrayed even further the depth of his heresy.

Cyril sent his personal correspondence with Nestorius as well his own five-book response titled Against Nestorius to Pope Celestine in Rome for the pontiff's decision. The Pope gave a general condemnation of the teaching of Nestorius regarding Mary's divine maternity and commanded him to recant within ten days. Cyril was to receive the recantation or depose Nestorius. Far from submitting, Nestorius demanded an ecumenical council and proclaimed his beliefs more loudly than ever.

While claiming to believe in one Christ in two natures, his explanation described the union of two distinct persons: "He who was formed in the womb of Mary was not God himself, but God assumed him. Through him that bears I worship him who is born." A mother cannot bear a son older than herself, he contended. Therefore, Mary did not give birth to the incarnate Word of God, only to Jesus, the temple or vessel of God. Rejecting the orthodox sense of Theotokos, he opted instead for Christokos ("Mother of Christ"), saying that he could never bring himself to call the Christ-child God. Nestorius concluded that it was not God who suffered and died on the cross, but only the man Jesus.

Orthodox Response

Besides St. Cyril, many other clergy and laymen rose to defend the divine maternity of Mary against the attack of Nestorius. Among these were Philip of Side, Proclus, Leo of Rome, and the layman Eusebius, later to become a bishop. Eusebius, while still a lawyer, is said to have risen from the congregation after Nestorius' initial Christmas homily and to have indignantly responded, "The eternal Word begotten before the ages had submitted also to be born a second time."

With Nestorius holding firm to his position, the emperor proposed to have a council meet in Ephesus to decide the matter once and for all. The council opened in the name of Pope Celestine I on June 22, 431.

Nestorius, who refused to attend, had his teachings anathematized, along with all who held communion with him, and he was deposed as bishop of Constantinople. Mary was officially proclaimed Mother of God to the delight of the faithful of Ephesus.

The controversy created by Nestorius made it obvious that a clearer terminology was needed to define the doctrine of the Incarnation which protected the divinity as well as the humanity of Christ. The solution, arrived at by Pope St. Leo the Great, was the use of the word "person," for which there was no well-defined concept before that time. Leo summed it up in his Tome 20 years after the Council of Ephesus: Each nature performs the actions proper to it, but every action is performed by the one person, Jesus the Word of God.

Modern Parallels

Today most Protestant denominations display an element of Nestorianism. Protestants typically reject the title "Mother of God" while echoing Nestorius' contention that a son cannot be older than his mother. They find it difficult to say that God was born in Bethlehem, that God suffered and died on the cross at Calvary. Many Protestant theologians, on the other hand, recognize this element of Nestorianism and assent to the title "Mother of God," though they use it only infrequently.

 

[Eric B]

Could you answer the question, instead of rehashing your distractory quotes?
Do YOU believe the "literal sense" proves the EOC or RCC (like you're trying to push on me)? If so, why are you "Congregational Holiness", and also claim not to believe in any local church at all, just "you and your Bible under a tree"?
Who are you, and what do you really believe?