My church defined your church's bible

[orthodox]

That was more than just two independant leaders, which Swaggart and Hinn are, with their own ministries. There seemed to be many such tumultuous periods, all in this single organization you think is the preserver of Christian unity and definition of apostolic sucession.

Well, at least it was tumultuous because people cared about the faith. It wasn't like medieval popes or Benny Hinn who just wanted money and secular power.

That's just what I mean. We may see some things like that differently, but most of us still acknowledge each other as being in Christ.
And yes, there are double standards. That's just the way people are.

Is mere bare minimum acknowledgement all you hope for? For example, Lutherans don't generally allow, say Anglicans or any other protestant group to attend their communion. Is it good enough to merely have grudging acknowledment others are in Christ when they don't have full communion?

Come off it now; just by saying the fathers were "orthodox" and essentially no different than 11th century Eastern Church, you are projecting onto them.

Well, no different in so far as the extant evidence shows. Obviously I can't prove they were Orthodox on issues that weren't discussed in surviving documents. That's all we can go by right, the evidence that exists?

I don't know all the details about that. But historians and archaeologists have been able to determine that certain books are genuine, while others are not. The epistle of Barnabas, for instance, was once believed to be from Barnabas of the NT, but it was determined it was really from a second century Alexandrian. Most of the other "gospels", "acts", epistles", and "apocalypses" were determined to be from the Gnostics.

Nonsense, if we followed the advice of what historians said there would be no bible left.

Regardless, of how long it took, Rome did break off, and now you consider it not in the true Church. You earlier even called it a cult. And the Protestants broke of, and together as "Western Christianity", they make up a vast majority of Christendom, so if you say Christ is only in the Eastern Church, (which many people don't even know much about), then it is a similar scenario as the underground Church theory, where the truth is largely lost to most of the Christian world.

I don't know what you mean "Christ is only in the Eastern Church", that is a category of classification we don't work in. What we say is that only the Orthodox church retains the fullness of the faith. Other groups have bits and pieces of the faith.

As far as who knows about it, well for most of the worlds history most people probably havn't known about Christ at all. On the other hand, the Orthodox church is in every country. Sometimes you've got to go looking to find the truth. But surely protestants aren't unaware of Orthodoxy. I mean, it is fairly well known that the NT was translated from Greek, they must know there has been a Greek church copying these manuscripts. It's not like there is some secret. Anybody who cares about the truth sooner or later is going to ask firstly why different churches disagree, where different churches come from and what happened to the original Church.

Regardless, the true God isn't a cow, and neither is he the Caucasian people draw and call Jesus. The Israelites said that it "only represented" God (more so that it was God).

Uh, where do you get that idea? My bible says they made for themselves a god and that they considered the cow to be a god. No orthodox person is under the illusion that an icon is a god.

Just like the represenations that God had authorized for the Temple. The difference was the authorization, and intention.

Ahh yes, the intention!

As for authorization, we believe, given the example in Acts 15, that the Church has the ability to authorize things in council.

Taking a picture of a friend who lived a holy life is not religious veneration, because he is not apart of your faith, like the people or "saints" of scripture God has so honored for us therein are.

Really? How is a saint in scripture part of your faith but a saint you know is not? I don't understand that.

Also I forgot to mention that you never addressed the fact of why the angel told John not to bow before him, but God only.

I presume because the angel felt that John was worshipping him. You never told me whether you think Japanese are idolaters because they bow to each other when they meet.

 

[orthodox]

No it's not. You are totally misguided.

Really. Why don't you tell me then who told you what the canon was, so that you might have that knowledge.

 

[Eric B]

Well, at least it was tumultuous because people cared about the faith. It wasn't like medieval popes or Benny Hinn who just wanted money and secular power.

That's very much what it looks like to me. the medieval popes and Benny Hinn can claim they are doing what they do in caring about the faith as well.

Is mere bare minimum acknowledgement all you hope for? For example, Lutherans don't generally allow, say Anglicans or any other protestant group to attend their communion. Is it good enough to merely have grudging acknowledment others are in Christ when they don't have full communion?

Well, we are not what we should be. As I have always said, it is organizations (which are a source of power and money to their leaders) that get in the way. I cannot do anything about them.

Well, no different in so far as the extant evidence shows. Obviously I can't prove they were Orthodox on issues that weren't discussed in surviving documents. That's all we can go by right, the evidence that exists?

The extant evidence does not show that they were the same as the 11th century. You see some things mentioned like bishops, but those offices were not the kingly power bases they became after the 4th century.

Nonsense, if we followed the advice of what historians said there would be no bible left.

Some historians may reduce the Bible down to nothing, but not all.

I don't know what you mean "Christ is only in the Eastern Church", that is a category of classification we don't work in. What we say is that only the Orthodox church retains the fullness of the faith. Other groups have bits and pieces of the faith.

As far as who knows about it, well for most of the worlds history most people probably havn't known about Christ at all. On the other hand, the Orthodox church is in every country. Sometimes you've got to go looking to find the truth. But surely protestants aren't unaware of Orthodoxy. I mean, it is fairly well known that the NT was translated from Greek, they must know there has been a Greek church copying these manuscripts. It's not like there is some secret. Anybody who cares about the truth sooner or later is going to ask firstly why different churches disagree, where different churches come from and what happened to the original Church.

I first heard of the idea of an "original church" through Church of Christ literature. Then, Armstrong literature spoke of it as well. They too spoke of "all the disagreeing Churches" on contrast to "one true Church". That interested me, but I am very inquisitive, and most people generally do not think too deeply on such a thing. Of course, the Roman and Greek churches looked like they went all the way back, but they had grown and developed in doctrine over the centuries, so just tracing to the original Church does not mean it is really the same in doctrine and practice. I would say that all of mainstream, conservative Christian denominations had parts of the truth (some more than others), so I do not look into any denominational body for "all" the truth, and that's why I reject one claiming to be "the only true Church".

Uh, where do you get that idea? My bible says they made for themselves a god and that they considered the cow to be a god. No orthodox person is under the illusion that an icon is a god.

They said it was the God who delivered them from Egypt. Even though translations may say "gods", still the word elohim could mean either that or a name of the true God, and the context supports the latter.

As for authorization, we believe, given the example in Acts 15, that the Church has the ability to authorize things in council.

Not something that God has not authorized. Do you believe the church council could authorize idolatry or murder if they wanted to, but just happen to agree with God on those things?

Really? How is a saint in scripture part of your faith but a saint you know is not? I don't understand that.

Because as I said, they were honored by God in scripture, which is our Holy book, the guide to our faith. You know that is not the same, as you would not erect a church in honor of someone you know just because you knew them.

I presume because the angel felt that John was worshipping him. You never told me whether you think Japanese are idolaters because they bow to each other when they meet.

Similar principle. In those cultures, bowing is just greeting, not an act of worshipping. You may say the ancient Biblical culture was the same, but then again, the angel did tell John it was not appropriate, so again, the motive is important.

 

[orthodox]

That's very much what it looks like to me. the medieval popes and Benny Hinn can claim they are doing what they do in caring about the faith as well.

Many popes were quite transparent in their seeking the position for money and power. Of course the west in later times suffered from the great burden that they got confused between church and secular power. But these EOC fathers we are talking about were arguing about theological issues. And you can't claim that Chrysostom wasn't doing a good job surely? If you thing the whole environment was corrupt tell me what was wrong with Chrysostom.

Well, we are not what we should be. As I have always said, it is organizations (which are a source of power and money to their leaders) that get in the way. I cannot do anything about them.

But the Lutherans would say they don't give communion to other groups because they can't be sure they agree with their doctrines. And that practice is itself a doctrine. And all you can say is that all these groups are wrong because they are sure about what they believe in, you want them to be the jelly church like you.

The extant evidence does not show that they were the same as the 11th century. You see some things mentioned like bishops, but those offices were not the kingly power bases they became after the 4th century.

I'd like to know who you claim had "kingly power"?

But again, power isn't doctrine unless the Church tries to make it so. The west tried to make power a dogma with Unam Sanctum, but nobody in the East tried that. The issue at hand is belief, not every aspect of practice.

Some historians may reduce the Bible down to nothing, but not all.

Ok, show me one historian, just one, any one, that can prove that Revelation is apostolic and I will eat my words.

Of course, the Roman and Greek churches looked like they went all the way back, but they had grown and developed in doctrine over the centuries, so just tracing to the original Church does not mean it is really the same in doctrine and practice.

Come on, you don't expect us to just take your word for it do you? Tell me a doctrine you disagree with, and prove the early church taking your position. That should be easy for someone with such bold assertive claims right?

They said it was the God who delivered them from Egypt. Even though translations may say "gods", still the word elohim could mean either that or a name of the true God, and the context supports the latter.

Your previous claim was that it was a *representation* of god, now you are admitting they said the cow was the god. Is that a retraction?

Not something that God has not authorized. Do you believe the church council could authorize idolatry or murder if they wanted to, but just happen to agree with God on those things?

Whatever you bind on earth has been bound in heaven. Councils are there only to reflect the will of God. Could the apostles have authorized murder? That question is of equal sillyness to yours.

Because as I said, they were honored by God in scripture, which is our Holy book, the guide to our faith. You know that is not the same, as you would not erect a church in honor of someone you know just because you knew them.

Yes we would erect churches to saints that are not in scripture, as you can easily verify yourself by doing a survey of orthodox churches.

So what are you saying, that saints mentioned in scripture are religious saints, but other saints are non-religious saints? So you don't have a problem with us venerating the post-biblical saints?

Similar principle. In those cultures, bowing is just greeting, not an act of worshipping. You may say the ancient Biblical culture was the same, but then again, the angel did tell John it was not appropriate, so again, the motive is important.

Yes, motive! So where is the controversy?

 

[Eliyahu]

The only true Goddess worshippers are the Hindu. Period.

So, Roman Catholic is even worse than Hindus, because RC are fake goddess worshippers pretending to be Christians, right ? They are not honest but disguised.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally Posted by Eliyahu
ignoring the fact that He was God and the Creator of Mary.


If you had ever cared to attend the divine liturgy of the Holy Orthodox Church, you might have heard it said that "Mary had within her womb her own creator".


Could you notice the difference between your statement and my statement ?

Your focus is that Mary had the Creator in her womb, while my focus is that Mary was mere a creature by Jesus Christ.
You exalt the sinner, the woman creature, while I exalt the Creator, the Redeemer

 

[Eliyahu]

Really. Why don't you tell me then who told you what the canon was, so that you might have that knowledge.

Have you ever answered this question?

Paul mentioned the Bible in 2 Tim 3:15-16.

At that time, there was the Bible mentioned by Paul.

At that time where was your church ?

 

[orthodox]

Originally Posted by Eliyahu
ignoring the fact that He was God and the Creator of Mary.


If you had ever cared to attend the divine liturgy of the Holy Orthodox Church, you might have heard it said that "Mary had within her womb her own creator".


Could you notice the difference between your statement and my statement ?

Your focus is that Mary had the Creator in her womb, while my focus is that Mary was mere a creature by Jesus Christ.
You exalt the sinner, the woman creature, while I exalt the Creator, the Redeemer

I didn't tell you the entire divine liturgy, I just told you one fact, which presumably even you agree with. That God was born of a sinner is the wonder of the incarnation. You are trying to make a controversy where there is none. Yes, we call Mary blessed, as the bible commands that we do. What is the issue?

Have you ever answered this question?

Paul mentioned the Bible in 2 Tim 3:16.

At that time, there was the Bible mentioned by Paul.

At that time where was your church ?

I don't understand the question. Where was the Church? Where do you think?

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Paul mentioned the Bible in 2 Tim 3:16.

No the Bible is not menationed there. Scripture is mentioned. The Bible did not exist then. At the time when that line was being written, the only scripture that existed was the books of the what currently our Old Testament and 1 Timothy. But it is highly unlikely 1 Timothy had reached the stage of being copied and circulated.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

....while my focus is that Mary was mere a creature by Jesus Christ

You just make sure you reiterate to Jesus when you soul stands naked before Him that his mother was just a mere creature.

I can practically hear Jesus now responding:

"Mere Creature? The woman I made to carry My Flesh, a Mere Creature? The woman who at my inspiration declared all generations shall call her blessed, which you hardly ever did, and when you did, you had contempt in your heart toward My Mother. The woman that was there for me, when you were not. The woman that nursed me, raised me, comforted me even unto the end when most of my desciples had fled? The woman to whom I am to Glorify as per scripture (see note 1). You honour my Father, but not my Mother for the sake of your own tradition?"

Yep please reiterate to Jesus that his Mother is just a Mere Creature, used for nothing but to be a receptacle, a mere Petrie Dish to be used and discarded, a temporary incubator, a temporary holding tank needed only for her reproduction organs, and abused by allowing her watch her Son be crucified. Yep please reiterate all that to Jesus when you meet him face to face.

Note 1: Exo 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

H3513
כּבד כּבד
kâbad kâbêd
kaw-bad, kaw-bade'
A primitive root; to be heavy, that is, in a bad sense (burdensome, severe, dull) or in a good sense (numerous, rich, honorable); causatively to make weighty (in the same two senses): - abounding with, more grievously afflict, boast, be chargeable, X be dim, glorify, be (make) glorious (things), glory, (very) great, be grievous, harden, be (make) heavy, be heavier, lay heavily, (bring to, come to, do, get, be had in) honour (self), (be) honourable (man), lade, X more be laid, make self many, nobles, prevail, promote (to honour), be rich, be (go) sore, stop.

 

[Eric B]

Many popes were quite transparent in their seeking the position for money and power. Of course the west in later times suffered from the great burden that they got confused between church and secular power. But these EOC fathers we are talking about were arguing about theological issues. And you can't claim that Chrysostom wasn't doing a good job surely? If you thing the whole environment was corrupt tell me what was wrong with Chrysostom.

I don't know much about Chrysostom, but then even if he wasn't like that, I never said there were no good leaders.

But the Lutherans would say they don't give communion to other groups because they can't be sure they agree with their doctrines. And that practice is itself a doctrine. And all you can say is that all these groups are wrong because they are sure about what they believe in, you want them to be the jelly church like you.

So should everyone be sure about conflicting beliefs, then? (In which case, most would surely be wrong). Or is this just a straw man type argument? (I shouldn't say they are wrong, but you can, in order to prove that the EOC is the solution to the problem)

I'd like to know who you claim had "kingly power"?

But again, power isn't doctrine unless the Church tries to make it so. The west tried to make power a dogma with Unam Sanctum, but nobody in the East tried that. The issue at hand is belief, not every aspect of practice.

Don't the highest eastern patriarchs live like kings also? (And especially in the past, when the Church did have more rule over society)

Ok, show me one historian, just one, any one, that can prove that Revelation is apostolic and I will eat my words.

I don't have any particular historians in mind. I see you shifted to this point from other historians out there saying it is not apostolic. Can they prove it isn't? The exile on Patmos is one big clue.

Come on, you don't expect us to just take your word for it do you? Tell me a doctrine you disagree with, and prove the early church taking your position. That should be easy for someone with such bold assertive claims right?

It's not really about "my position", the issue is whether thay take the later Church's position. I have not been dogmatic about a lot of things both catholics and anticatholics have been dogmatic on. It's you telling me I am not in a true Church becauase of some doctrine or practice I don't observe that I am challenging.

Your previous claim was that it was a *representation* of god, now you are admitting they said the cow was the god. Is that a retraction?

That is semantics you're playing with. I don't see any difference. It was they who identified it with the God who brought them out of Egypt. They know they did not follow a molten calf out. That's why I used the word "represent". The point is, He did not authorize it, and He was angry at them for that.

Whatever you bind on earth has been bound in heaven. Councils are there only to reflect the will of God. Could the apostles have authorized murder? That question is of equal sillyness to yours.

So then that means you cannot compare your images with the figures in the Temple and say that the apostles bound them on earth because God bound them in heaven. If they were bound in heaven, they would be clearly taught, just like the instructions for the Temple were thundered down from Heaven, and they would be actual likenesses of the saints.
These images are things later people did on their own, just like the Israelites and the golden calf.

Yes we would erect churches to saints that are not in scripture, as you can easily verify yourself by doing a survey of orthodox churches.

So what are you saying, that saints mentioned in scripture are religious saints, but other saints are non-religious saints? So you don't have a problem with us venerating the post-biblical saints?

Yes, motive! So where is the controversy?

But you keep comparing it to some friend or loved one we know. What I was trying to say was, you wouldn't erect a Church in honor of your first cousin or best friend, for no other reason than you like them, (which is the 'motive' of a picture of them) would you?

 

[orthodox]

I don't know much about Chrysostom, but then even if he wasn't like that, I never said there were no good leaders.

So now what is the implication, that maybe Chrysostom was the exception? You don't have a lot of facts here.

So should everyone be sure about conflicting beliefs, then? (In which case, most would surely be wrong).

Well, if there is no record whatsoever of anybody disputing a particular doctrine prior to the reformation, why should we give protestants any leeway on that? If we give leeway on everything, there is nothing left but continual arguments.

Or is this just a straw man type argument? (I shouldn't say they are wrong, but you can, in order to prove that the EOC is the solution to the problem)

Don't the highest eastern patriarchs live like kings also? (And especially in the past, when the Church did have more rule over society)

Uh no, they don't live like kings, they are monks and have lived like monks for probably 40 years before becoming a patriarch.

I don't have any particular historians in mind. I see you shifted to this point from other historians out there saying it is not apostolic. Can they prove it isn't? The exile on Patmos is one big clue.

You don't have any facts on this. Can someone prove they are non-apostolic? Some historians say they can. Can you prove all the other apocryphal writings are not apostolic? Of course you can't. And Patmos doesn't prove anything at all. You ought to admit that the aposticity of the scriptures is church tradition.

It's not really about "my position", the issue is whether thay take the later Church's position.

Come on then, give use your best shot in showing the early church taking a different position to the later church.

That is semantics you're playing with. I don't see any difference. It was they who identified it with the God who brought them out of Egypt. They know they did not follow a molten calf out. That's why I used the word "represent". The point is, He did not authorize it, and He was angry at them for that.

So let me get this straight. When you look into your own heart and consider an illustration of Christ - let's say raising Lazarus, or at the transfiguration... you cannot see any difference between that and offering sacrifices to a golden calf?

If you walk into say a catholic church and see the stained glass windows, do you think "Christ and the apostles" or do you think "idols, golden calfs"?

So then that means you cannot compare your images with the figures in the Temple and say that the apostles bound them on earth because God bound them in heaven. If they were bound in heaven, they would be clearly taught, just like the instructions for the Temple were thundered down from Heaven, and they would be actual likenesses of the saints.

Who said they are not clearly taught? The images themselves are a teaching mechanism.

As for actual likenesses, I don't see the issue. Were the images of cherabim the actual likeness of some actual cherabim? I doubt it. Again, icons are deliberately non-realistic. They are only to remind us of heavenly things, not to replace them.

These images are things later people did on their own, just like the Israelites and the golden calf.

Proof?

But you keep comparing it to some friend or loved one we know. What I was trying to say was, you wouldn't erect a Church in honor of your first cousin or best friend, for no other reason than you like them, (which is the 'motive' of a picture of them) would you?

If my best friend was a saint, then yes absolutely I would erect a Church in honour of them. In fact, I'm sure a lot of churches got named that way. Churches get named for no better reason than that somebody liked that saint.

 

[Eric B]

So now what is the implication, that maybe Chrysostom was the exception? You don't have a lot of facts here.

Maybe not the only exception (if he was an exception), but history itself provides the facts.

Uh no, they don't live like kings, they are monks and have lived like monks for probably 40 years before becoming a patriarch.

How about after becoming a patriarch?

Well, if there is no record whatsoever of anybody disputing a particular doctrine prior to the reformation, why should we give protestants any leeway on that? If we give leeway on everything, there is nothing left but continual arguments.

You don't have any facts on this. Can someone prove they are non-apostolic? Some historians say they can. Can you prove all the other apocryphal writings are not apostolic? Of course you can't. And Patmos doesn't prove anything at all. You ought to admit that the aposticity of the scriptures is church tradition.

Notice, on one hand, your criteria for dogmatic "tradition" is no one disputing something, yet you keep bringing up the disputes on the canon. It was the church of that time that was included as the "historians" who identified many apocryphal books as being from the Gnostics. That is not tradition, but first hand knowledge that those books came from and were used by this particular sect.

Come on then, give use your best shot in showing the early church taking a different position to the later church.

You're the one who needs better proof that the "Early Church" (the NT period is what is really what we're getting at) was the same as the later Church. Like I said way in the beginning; if I walked into one of the congregations Paul wrote to and visited, it would liike just like an EOC cathedral and mass I pass by today.

So let me get this straight. When you look into your own heart and consider an illustration of Christ - let's say raising Lazarus, or at the transfiguration... you cannot see any difference between that and offering sacrifices to a golden calf?

If you walk into say a catholic church and see the stained glass windows, do you think "Christ and the apostles" or do you think "idols, golden calfs"?

Who said they are not clearly taught? The images themselves are a teaching mechanism.

As for actual likenesses, I don't see the issue. Were the images of cherabim the actual likeness of some actual cherabim? I doubt it. Again, icons are deliberately non-realistic. They are only to remind us of heavenly things, not to replace them.

>These images are things later people did on their own, just like the Israelites and the golden calf.
Proof?

I don't see how you associate a mental picture of Christ doing something with drawing or scupting a material object and bowing before it, or praying to it, or whatever you do with them. To me, the stained glass makes good decoration. If you bow or pray to them as if they themselves were Jesus or the saints, then it is like the golden calf. And the issue is not whether you use it to teach or not, but whether it is a legitimate tool to begin with.

If my best friend was a saint, then yes absolutely I would erect a Church in honour of them. In fact, I'm sure a lot of churches got named that way. Churches get named for no better reason than that somebody liked that saint.

But that's just it; I specifically said "for no other reason" to exclude him being a "saint" (in the "catholic" sense of him doing some great work for the faith, and doesn't this include a miracle, or is that just Rome?) You had tried to justify the icons of saints in Church with a picture of a friend/loved one. So we're not talking abut a "saint" you happen to know, but comparing it with something else (which you brought into the equation) to challenge whether it really matches in the first place.

 

[orthodox]

Maybe not the only exception (if he was an exception), but history itself provides the facts.
How about after becoming a patriarch?

You're desperate to find something wrong with the Orthodox church, aren't you?

Bishops in general are too busy to live like kings, but perhaps this little excerpt will give you an insight...

"It is not without reason that Patriarch Pavle has been referred to as a "saint who walks." The simplicity of his lifestyle and his personal humility have found favor by all of those who are familiar with this virtuous man. All of the Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church have an automobile, which they use to travel through their dioceses. The one exception has been Patriarch Pavle. When asked why he never obtained an automobile, he replies: "I will not purchase one until every Albanian and Serbian household in Kosovo and Metohija has an automobile."

Notice, on one hand, your criteria for dogmatic "tradition" is no one disputing something, yet you keep bringing up the disputes on the canon.

Disputes are eventually resolved. How would it be if every Christian went through all the machinations that the Church went through to decide the canon?

It was the church of that time that was included as the "historians" who identified many apocryphal books as being from the Gnostics. That is not tradition, but first hand knowledge that those books came from and were used by this particular sect.

Unless you saw the author compose it, there was no first hand knowledge. The Gospel of Peter was used from time to time in the church, and nobody ever, as far as we know, provided first hand knowledge of who wrote it, or that its origin was an heretical sect.

You're the one who needs better proof that the "Early Church" (the NT period is what is really what we're getting at) was the same as the later Church. Like I said way in the beginning; if I walked into one of the congregations Paul wrote to and visited, it would liike just like an EOC cathedral and mass I pass by today.

Since the orthodox church I attend is a tiny single garage that people have commented is reminiscent of the catacombs Christians hid in the early centuries, I think you're missing the point. Yes there were no cathedrals in the 1st century. But cathedrals are not the crux of orthodoxy.

Take for example the orthodox liturgy. During the service a point comes when it is said "catachumens depart, shut the doors". This is a hang over from prior to Constantine when non-Christians would have to leave prior to Eucharist so that the authorities would not find out who was Christian. Nobody leaves the service now because there is no persecution, but it is retained as a reminder of where we came from. That's an illustration of a tradition that has been retained since the early persecution period. Even the largest cathedral in an all-orthodox country still does things as if they were the 1st century church under persecution.

I don't see how you associate a mental picture of Christ doing something with drawing or scupting a material object and bowing before it, or praying to it, or whatever you do with them. To me, the stained glass makes good decoration.

But we don't pray to the icon, that is the point. If you looked at a photo of your family whilst thinking good thoughts about them, should we assume you worship Kodak paper?

But that's just it; I specifically said "for no other reason" to exclude him being a "saint"

So what are you saying, that it is okay to venerate as long as they are NOT a saint?? ROFLOL.

You had tried to justify the icons of saints in Church with a picture of a friend/loved one. So we're not talking abut a "saint" you happen to know, but comparing it with something else (which you brought into the equation) to challenge whether it really matches in the first place.

But what is the difference? You havn't explained what the difference is supposed to be other than you approve of venerating non-saints, but not saints.

 

[Eric B]

You're desperate to find something wrong with the Orthodox church, aren't you?

No, this is the general image people have gotten from the leadership of the Church. Maybe it is being projected from the stigma of Rome. I still find it hard to believe that at least the bishop of Constantinople does not live in a palace attached to his cathedral.

Disputes are eventually resolved. How would it be if every Christian went through all the machinations that the Church went through to decide the canon?

Unless you saw the author compose it, there was no first hand knowledge. The Gospel of Peter was used from time to time in the church, and nobody ever, as far as we know, provided first hand knowledge of who wrote it, or that its origin was an heretical sect.

Since the orthodox church I attend is a tiny single garage that people have commented is reminiscent of the catacombs Christians hid in the early centuries, I think you're missing the point. Yes there were no cathedrals in the 1st century. But cathedrals are not the crux of orthodoxy.

Take for example the orthodox liturgy. During the service a point comes when it is said "catachumens depart, shut the doors". This is a hang over from prior to Constantine when non-Christians would have to leave prior to Eucharist so that the authorities would not find out who was Christian. Nobody leaves the service now because there is no persecution, but it is retained as a reminder of where we came from. That's an illustration of a tradition that has been retained since the early persecution period. Even the largest cathedral in an all-orthodox country still does things as if they were the 1st century church under persecution.

OK, so basically, all these "traditions" (including the canon and elements of the liturgy) you admit are not handed down from the apostles, but were developed and decided as time went on. That is what I have been trying to get established. (I wasn't really even getting at the cathedrals so much).

But we don't pray to the icon, that is the point. If you looked at a photo of your family whilst thinking good thoughts about them, should we assume you worship Kodak paper?

So what are you saying, that it is okay to venerate as long as they are NOT a saint?? ROFLOL.

But what is the difference? You havn't explained what the difference is supposed to be other than you approve of venerating non-saints, but not saints.

But looking at a photo and thinking good thoughts is not "veneration" in the sense we are discussing. That's what you're not understanding. veneration carries a religious connotation which involves worship. You are taking one of its definitions "treat with great respect", but we are looking at the other definition (from wiktionary): to revere

1. to regard someone or something with great awe or devotion
2. to venerate someone or something as an idol

then, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration:

In traditional Christian Churches of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, veneration (Latin veneratio, Greek δουλια dulia), or veneration of saints, is a special act of honoring a dead person who has been identified as singular in the traditions of the religion, and through them honoring God who made them and in whose image they are made. Veneration is often shown outwardly by respectfully bowing or making the sign of the cross before a saint's icon, relics, or statue. These items may also be kissed.
In Catholic and Orthodox theology, veneration is a type of honor distinct from the worship due to God alone. Church theologians have long adopted the terms latria for the sacrificial worship due to God alone, and dulia for the veneration given to saints and icons. Catholic theology also includes the term hyperdulia for the type of veneration specifically paid to Mary, mother of Jesus, in Catholic tradition. This distinction is spelled out in the dogmatic conclusions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), which also decreed that iconoclasm (forbidding icons and their veneration) is a heresy that amounts to a denial of the incarnation of Jesus. [=NON SEQUITUR]

http://www.baptistboard.com/
Other religious traditions

In some other religious traditions such as Judaism, Islam and Protestantism, veneration is considered to amount to the heresy of idolatry, and the related practice of canonization amounts to the heresy of apotheosis. Protestant theology usually denies that any real distinction between veneration and worship can be made, and claims that the practice of veneration distracts the Christian soul from its true object, the worship of God. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin writes that "(t)he distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity."

 

[orthodox]

No, this is the general image people have gotten from the leadership of the Church. Maybe it is being projected from the stigma of Rome. I still find it hard to believe that at least the bishop of Constantinople does not live in a palace attached to his cathedral.

I don't know how you define palace, but it is quite frugal by palace standards. Naturally he has to have space to hold meetings as any kind of leader of hundreds of millions of people needs to do.

OK, so basically, all these "traditions" (including the canon and elements of the liturgy) you admit are not handed down from the apostles, but were developed and decided as time went on. That is what I have been trying to get established. (I wasn't really even getting at the cathedrals so much).

Of course the canon was handed down from the apostles, otherwise it wouldn't be scripture. But knowing it is scripture is something the mind of the entire church needed to address. You can't know for sure what is the tradition by asking one person, you have to take a bird's eye view of the universal church. The church has the power to do that introspection when necessary to discern the tradition.

But looking at a photo and thinking good thoughts is not "veneration" in the sense we are discussing. That's what you're not understanding. veneration carries a religious connotation which involves worship. You are taking one of its definitions "treat with great respect", but we are looking at the other definition (from wiktionary): to revere

Well, don't you think we have the right to define our own terms? We know what sense we are using words, so we can tell you what we are talking about.

As for Calvin and the dinstinction between latria and doulia, again, we define our own terms. If we want to call it jingling and jangling, can't we define what we mean? But the difference is there in the common meanings. Even in the bible, no one but God is given latria, but doulia is a more common word that is frequently used of people. I mean, at 1 Cor 9:19 Paul says that he serves [doulia] everybody. It would have been quite natural for the Greeks to say they offer doulia to the saints because it is a common word of no especial religious significance.

 

[Eliyahu]

I didn't tell you the entire divine liturgy, I just told you one fact, which presumably even you agree with. That God was born of a sinner is the wonder of the incarnation. You are trying to make a controversy where there is none. Yes, we call Mary blessed, as the bible commands that we do. What is the issue?

I don't understand the question. Where was the Church? Where do you think?

1. Is Mary the only woman blessed among women ?

Ge 30:13
And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher


Jud 5:24
Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent

What did Jesus say about this blessed woman ?

Luke 11:27-28
27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it

( Do you want to teach Jesus that He should have said, Mary is so special and the more blessed than any other woman and we must call her Mother of God, and must worship Her as our Blessed Mother ! ?)

This is why Revelation tells us this:

Re 22:7
Behold, I come quickly:blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Re 22:14
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city




2. So are you still claiming that Roman Catholic existed when Paul mention Timothy about the Bible in 2 Timothy 3:15-16?

 

[Eliyahu]

You just make sure you reiterate to Jesus when you soul stands naked before Him that his mother was just a mere creature.

I can practically hear Jesus now responding:

"Mere Creature? The woman I made to carry My Flesh, a Mere Creature? The woman who at my inspiration declared all generations shall call her blessed, which you hardly ever did, and when you did, you had contempt in your heart toward My Mother. The woman that was there for me, when you were not. The woman that nursed me, raised me, comforted me even unto the end when most of my desciples had fled? The woman to whom I am to Glorify as per scripture (see note 1). You honour my Father, but not my Mother for the sake of your own tradition?"

Yep please reiterate to Jesus that his Mother is just a Mere Creature, used for nothing but to be a receptacle, a mere Petrie Dish to be used and discarded, a temporary incubator, a temporary holding tank needed only for her reproduction organs, and abused by allowing her watch her Son be crucified. Yep please reiterate all that to Jesus when you meet him face to face.

Note 1: Exo 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

H3513
כּבד כּבד
kâbad kâbêd
kaw-bad, kaw-bade'
A primitive root; to be heavy, that is, in a bad sense (burdensome, severe, dull) or in a good sense (numerous, rich, honorable); causatively to make weighty (in the same two senses): - abounding with, more grievously afflict, boast, be chargeable, X be dim, glorify, be (make) glorious (things), glory, (very) great, be grievous, harden, be (make) heavy, be heavier, lay heavily, (bring to, come to, do, get, be had in) honour (self), (be) honourable (man), lade, X more be laid, make self many, nobles, prevail, promote (to honour), be rich, be (go) sore, stop.

1. Where is such statement by Jesus about Mary ? You are Bible creator !

2. Where did Jesus ask the disciples to worship Mary ?

3. Why do you think there is no mentioning about your Holy Mother in Revelation ? Why is she not exalted in the judgment seat ?

4. So, why did Paul mention about Mary simply saying a Woman ? How much disrespectful was he about your Holy Mother ?
Read Gal 4:4 " made of a woman ( came out of a woman)

Mere a woman ?

5. So, are you claiming that Mary is our Mother ?
Why did Jesus say to John " thy mother" indicating Mary ? ( Jn 19:27)

6. Who do you know is our mother ?
Listen to Apostle Paul :

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. ( Gal 4:26)
Does Paul talk about Jerusalem ? Read Galatians 4 carefully, you will find Paul is talking about Sarah, the freewoman.

7. Listen to Peter.

1 Pet 3:6
3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement


Where do you find ever-virgin Mary, Perpetual Virgin Mary for us to worship ?


8. Listen to the Lord Jesus


Matthew 12:

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother!

What a Blasphemy to your Holy Mother, by Jesus our Lord ?

9. How did Jesus call Mary ? Read John 2:4 " Woman", Read John 19:26 " Woman" Why didn't He call her Mother ? He must have shown some good example for the people, right ?


Is your Holy Mother not a whorish imagination by the goddess worshippers?

 

[Eric B]

Of course the canon was handed down from the apostles, otherwise it wouldn't be scripture. But knowing it is scripture is something the mind of the entire church needed to address. You can't know for sure what is the tradition by asking one person, you have to take a bird's eye view of the universal church. The church has the power to do that introspection when necessary to discern the tradition.

If it was handed down from the apostles, why would people think that the Gospel of Peter belonged, or that Revelation didn't? If you say "just look at the entire Church", then that is the "lowest common denominator" again, and purely retrospective as well.

Well, don't you think we have the right to define our own terms? We know what sense we are using words, so we can tell you what we are talking about.

As for Calvin and the dinstinction between latria and doulia, again, we define our own terms. If we want to call it jingling and jangling, can't we define what we mean? But the difference is there in the common meanings. Even in the bible, no one but God is given latria, but doulia is a more common word that is frequently used of people. I mean, at 1 Cor 9:19 Paul says that he serves [doulia] everybody. It would have been quite natural for the Greeks to say they offer doulia to the saints because it is a common word of no especial religious significance.

But the term "doulia" didn't belong to the Church for you to define it, it belonged to the Greek language, and the church (way after Paul, that is) apparently took it and put a new meaning to it to cover up the bona-fide "latreia" being given to others beside God. We are not discussing mere "service/servanthood", and the original definition is not "reverence" or "veneration"

 

[Inquiring Mind]

1. Where is such statement by Jesus about Mary ? You are Bible creator !

?????????????