My church defined your church's bible

[Helen]

What became the Orthodox and RCC were 'formed', if you have to call it that, by Constantine.

Yes, I know. I used to teach church history...

Orthodox, a solid historical reference is Bruce L. Shelley's "Church History in Plain Language." He has lists of further resources for the interested reader at the end of each chapter.

In brief, Diocletian, in the last two years of his reign as Emperor of Rome, ordered the most severe of the Christian persecutions. This was continued in the east by Galerius, the Augustus over that region (Diocletian had divided the Roman Empire into three sections). The persecution was so severe that pagan public opinion showed the people themselves were sickened by the slaughter. His last act, on his deathbed, was Galerius' edict of toleration for the Christians. This ended the last of the great persecutions under the Roman emperors.

In 312 Constantine advanced across the Alps to stake claim to the head of the Roman Empire. The battle at the Milvian Bridge is famous because of the reported dream of Constantine where he saw a cross and the words "In this sign conquer."

Conquer he did. And he 'converted' to Christianity, becoming the head of the Christian church, as he was the head of every Roman religion. He retain the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus -- a title the Pope in the Vatican retains to this day.

The church as headed by Constantine retained the pagan alters in the churches it took over and retained the statues of the pagan gods and goddesses. However they now became renamed and became 'saints', commemorating, at first, some of the more famous of the martyred Christians. A number of the pagan rites were retained and only slightly altered and renamed. Kept was the sprinkling of incense water, a distinctly pagan tradition. Kept was the round wafer, representing the sun god, and it was now used in what came to be known as the Eucharist. It had been used before in a similar manner, representing the partaking in the divinity of the gods. Many other things were kept as well, including, and most important, the elevation of the priests above the 'commoners', who were then responsible to them rather than to God.

In the original and continuing Christian church, the ministers are no better than the people and all are responsible personally to God.

The church Constantine formed also incorporated parts of the form of the Roman governmental system. As the Roman Empire had dioceses, so did the new church. Levels of leadership were copied, with the head, known as 'papa' or 'pope', being the final head, and wearing the finery passed down from imperial tradition.

However, with the true followers of Christ, none of this prevailed against them. The Roman Catholics in particular endeavored to crush all perceived opposition, enforcing its own reign of terror through the next thousand years, enforcing compliance with their teachings, more and more often as opposed to straight biblical teaching. This they came to refer to as 'tradition' and put it on a pedestal that seems now to be higher than that of Scripture.

The split between the eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches is often considered to have started in 1054, when Cardinal Humbert lay a Bull of Exommunication upon the altar of the Church of Holy Wisdom at Constantinople.

This being understood as a fact of history, there is no possible way the Orthodox church had anything to do with the Bible canonization.

And since the Roman Catholic church came along in the fourth century, they also cannot lay claim to the Bible as something they put together. The books of the Bible were accepted as inspired starting almost immediately (see Peter's comments about Paul's letters in 2 Peter 3:16), with a few of them being matters for discussion and debate until they were fully accepted. However it was not the acceptance which was the problem with the early Bible, but what should be excluded. It is this which was finalized by the Councils I mentioned before. The books which were included had long been recognized as inspired. It was not until the Council of Carthage in 400 that the official pronouncement of EXCLUDED books was made. These books included The Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Revelation of Peter, the Acts of Peter, and the Didache.

In other words, orthodox, you are running short on history and long on argumentativeness.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Actually, the truth is...

The books accepted as being inspired were pretty much finalized at least a hundred years before the Catholic church in any form came into being. They were the books written by the original eyewitnesses and Luke, who travelled with the Apostles, as we see in Acts. The Councils of Laodicea in 364 and Carthage in 400 simply confirmed the accepted canon.

Other books were not accepted for a variety of reasons: spurious authorship, unsubstantiated material, late arrival, etc.

As early as 150 AD the Gospels had been collected, as well as Paul's letters. Polycarp and Ignatius both quoted from the Gospels and Paul's letters as Scripture. In the Bible itself, Peter declares Paul's letters to be Scripture.

The Roman Catholic church, which preceded the Orthodox, was not formed until Constantine in the 300's. That is simple history, regardless of any propaganda the RC or other churches choose to teach.

The books accepted as canonical were finalized a century before the Catholic Church--referred to by Ignatius in A.D. 107--came into being? I guess that limits us entirely to the OT then!

The Roman Catholic Church was formed circa 1054, when it schismed from the Orthodox Faith; before that, they were one. No church was formed under Constantine or during the 300s, but the Nestorian and Monophysite churches were created by schism roughly a century after that. Except for the question of perspective on one point (did the RCC split from the OC, or did the OC split from the RCC), what I have written here is simple history and free from propaganda taught by Baptists or any other churches.

Tauf, historian

 

[orthodox]

The problems of Orthodoxy and Catholicism stem from earlier than Constantine's era. The church quickly started innovating and doing whatever it wanted as soon as the apostles were dead.

I congratulate you for recognizing that Orthodoxy hasn't changed since well before Constantine's era. But now I must ask you to prove that it has ever changed.

However, I take exception to the following claims sometimes made:
1) That either the Catholic or the Orthodox church gave us the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16 gives God credit for that. In light of that, I personally would be terrified to claim credit for something explicitly stated to be God's work.

2) Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism decided what is Scripture. What is "breathed out by God" 2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV) is Scripture whether or not recognized by us or no. What is not "breathed out by God" is not Scripture regardless of whoever says it is. God decided what is Scripture when He gave it to us individual book by individual book.

It's not a matter of Orthodoxy "claiming credit" for scripture, it is a matter of claiming that the Orthodox church is one holy catholic and apostolic church which the Holy Spirit has led into all truth. We say this in all humility, and yet with all earnestness. Since it is the orthodox church which... as a matter of historical fact... the holy spirit has led into truth concerning the canon, then it is to us you must refer when observing the canon.

3) In the decades after the apostles, there was some confusion on what was Scripture. This is because the church was doing whatever it wanted. This confused what was Scripture.

I'm not sure what "doing whatever it wanted" is supposed to refer to, or how this is supposed to have led to the confusion. But never-the-less, the confusion DID arise - we agree on that. And to this day, it is the resolution of that confusion BY THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, which is considered infallible, even by baptists.

4) We can get a good idea of what is Scripture by looking at the citations of authors up to about the year 150.

Uh huh. Firstly, why do you trust these authors? Wasn't the church "doing whatever it wanted" according to you, as soon as the apostles died? Unless you believe the Holy Spirit was leading the orthodox church into all truth after the apostles died, then you have no firm basis for trusting these authors.

Secondly, the baptist church wouldn't trust the doctrines expoused by these authors, since they are clearly not protestants, they are orthodox in their doctrines. If you don't trust their doctrines, why trust their canon?

Thirdly, not many authors have survived prior to the year 150. Not many at all. You're not getting a very good sample.

Fourthly, whilst citations may give you some kind of an idea of what was scripture up to the year 150, it will not settle many issues. It will not settle Revelation, or 2 Peter. It won't settle John 8:1-11, or Mark 16.

We do not need fourth century Orthodoxy or Catholicism to know what Scripture is.

I would ask you to prove that. Show me what is scripture and ALL of what is scripture without referring to the church after the year 150.

 

[orthodox]

So many errors in such a short posting....

What became the Orthodox and RCC were 'formed', if you have to call it that, by Constantine. [/i]

Yes, I know. I used to teach church history...

Orthodox, a solid historical reference is Bruce L. Shelley's "Church History in Plain Language." He has lists of further resources for the interested reader at the end of each chapter.

In brief, Diocletian, in the last two years of his reign as Emperor of Rome, ordered the most severe of the Christian persecutions. This was continued in the east by Galerius, the Augustus over that region (Diocletian had divided the Roman Empire into three sections). The persecution was so severe that pagan public opinion showed the people themselves were sickened by the slaughter. His last act, on his deathbed, was Galerius' edict of toleration for the Christians. This ended the last of the great persecutions under the Roman emperors.

In 312 Constantine advanced across the Alps to stake claim to the head of the Roman Empire. The battle at the Milvian Bridge is famous because of the reported dream of Constantine where he saw a cross and the words "In this sign conquer."

Conquer he did. And he 'converted' to Christianity, becoming the head of the Christian church, as he was the head of every Roman religion. He retain the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus -- a title the Pope in the Vatican retains to this day.

Constantine has never been head of the christian church. Please document ANYBODY in the church ever saying such nonsense.

The church as headed by Constantine retained the pagan alters in the churches it took over and retained the statues of the pagan gods and goddesses.

Since no orthodox church has, or ever has, contained statutes of pagan gods, all I can say is "more nonsense". Please document.

However they now became renamed and became 'saints', commemorating, at first, some of the more famous of the martyred Christians. A number of the pagan rites were retained and only slightly altered and renamed. Kept was the sprinkling of incense water, a distinctly pagan tradition. Kept was the round wafer, representing the sun god,

Since unleavened bread (aka "wafers") were not used in the West until the 8th century (and have NEVER been used in orthodoxy, clearly this is baloney. Orthodoxy uses loaves of regular bread.

and it was now used in what came to be known as the Eucharist. It had been used before in a similar manner, representing the partaking in the divinity of the gods. Many other things were kept as well, including, and most important, the elevation of the priests above the 'commoners', who were then responsible to them rather than to God.

In the original and continuing Christian church, the ministers are no better than the people and all are responsible personally to God.

Whatever that is supposed to mean. Please document the existence of this alleged "continuing" Christian church from the apostles through to the present day.

The church Constantine formed also incorporated parts of the form of the Roman governmental system. As the Roman Empire had dioceses, so did the new church. Levels of leadership were copied, with the head, known as 'papa' or 'pope', being the final head, and wearing the finery passed down from imperial tradition.

Ignatius, writing around the year 98 AD said that the head of each church is its bishop. You think the church got it wrong as early as 98 AD?

However, with the true followers of Christ, none of this prevailed against them. The Roman Catholics in particular endeavored to crush all perceived opposition, enforcing its own reign of terror through the next thousand years, enforcing compliance with their teachings, more and more often as opposed to straight biblical teaching. This they came to refer to as 'tradition' and put it on a pedestal that seems now to be higher than that of Scripture.

I don't know what reign of terror you are talking about with regards the Roman catholics, but remember I am orthodox. I don't have to defend what the Roman catholics were doing.

The split between the eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches is often considered to have started in 1054, when Cardinal Humbert lay a Bull of Exommunication upon the altar of the Church of Holy Wisdom at Constantinople.

This being understood as a fact of history, there is no possible way the Orthodox church had anything to do with the Bible canonization.

Huh? Just because the western church split off from the one holy and apostolic orthodox church, has nothing to do with the fact that ours was the church that the holy spirit led into all truth concerning the canon. The problem of the Roman bishop splitting off is an irrevelancy to that discussion.

And since the Roman Catholic church came along in the fourth century,

Huh? Where's the documentation for that? Peter and Paul set up the Roman church in the 1st century.

they also cannot lay claim to the Bible as something they put together. The books of the Bible were accepted as inspired starting almost immediately (see Peter's comments about Paul's letters in 2 Peter 3:16), with a few of them being matters for discussion and debate until they were fully accepted.

They were discussed and debated IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. And it is the decisions OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH which you now accept today.

How do you feel that your faith is based on so many factual errors and undocumented claims?

 

[orthodox]

A number of the pagan rites were retained and only slightly altered and renamed. Kept was the sprinkling of incense water, a distinctly pagan tradition.

I missed this the first time.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME that incense is a pagan tradition??

Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations," says the LORD of hosts."

Here we have the last book of the OT _prophesying_ that among the NATIONS (not just the Jews) that in "every place" incense will be offered in the name of God.

My question is why baptists are disobeying scripture yet again?

 

[Darron Steele]

I congratulate you for recognizing that Orthodoxy hasn't changed since well before Constantine's era.

I believe that this is `spinning.' I certainly did not claim that Orthodoxy has not changed since well before Constantine. The problems that infest Orthodoxy and Catholicism stemmed from the post-apostolic corruption. Those problems simply continued to grow.

It's not a matter of Orthodoxy "claiming credit" for scripture, it is a matter of claiming that the Orthodox church is one holy catholic and apostolic church which the Holy Spirit has led into all truth. We say this in all humility, and yet with all earnestness. Since it is the orthodox church which... as a matter of historical fact... the holy spirit has led into truth concerning the canon, then it is to us you must refer when observing the canon.

"Historical fact?" An unproven assertion on conjectures of Holy Spirit activity cannot be considered "historical fact."

I will agree with you that it is verified history that Orthodoxy defined a canon most Christians recognize. The canon I observe is based upon my own research into pre-150 C.E. writings.

I'm not sure what "doing whatever it wanted" is supposed to refer to, or how this is supposed to have led to the confusion.

Simple: by `innovating' and adding with little to no regard the New Testament churches' doctrine and practice.

But never-the-less, the confusion DID arise - we agree on that. And to this day, it is the resolution of that confusion BY THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, which is considered infallible, even by baptists.

I do not consider the decision of the Orthodox bishops on the canon to be infallible. I do not consider Orthodoxy infallible on anything.

I am glad Orthodoxy in the fourth century dampened further damage on the canon.

Uh huh. Firstly, why do you trust these authors? Wasn't the church "doing whatever it wanted" according to you, as soon as the apostles died? Unless you believe the Holy Spirit was leading the orthodox church into all truth after the apostles died, then you have no firm basis for trusting these authors.

You are right regarding pre-150 authors. I consider them evidence: the best evidence we have.

Secondly, the baptist church wouldn't trust the doctrines expoused by these authors, since they are clearly not protestants, they are orthodox in their doctrines. If you don't trust their doctrines, why trust their canon?

It is fallacious to contend that if someone was not Protestant that they necessarily had to be Orthodox. The early authors were NOT Orthodox as known today. They were neither Orthodox nor Protestant. They were in transition between New Testament Christian and what became Orthodox-Catholic.

I do not accept nor reject a priori. I evaluate evidence and decide for myself. Like any other Christian group, Orthodoxy can be wrong on one thing and right on another.

Thirdly, not many authors have survived prior to the year 150. Not many at all. You're not getting a very good sample.

Better than considering anyone centuries into the corruption.

Fourthly, whilst citations may give you some kind of an idea of what was scripture up to the year 150, it will not settle many issues. It will not settle Revelation, or 2 Peter. It won't settle John 8:1-11, or Mark 16.

Revelation is cited in 1 Clement. 2 Peter I found references elsewhere.

Mark 16:9-20 is forged and not Scripture. In addition to the manuscript evidence, there is also the historical evidence you have pointed out: no references to distinctive text in that forgery before 150.

John 7:53-8:11 I have not looked into because of the manuscript evidence and because 7:52 and 8:12 flow into each other without the insertion, while with the insertion 8:12 starts mid-narration to an audience that was not there at 8:11. I consider it an insertion.

I would ask you to prove that. Show me what is scripture and ALL of what is scripture without referring to the church after the year 150.

I would encourage you to secure and investigate translations of these early Christian writers where there Scripture quotations and allusions are noted and indexed. I would encourage you to look up commentaries that give a history of early citations of Bible books. I did both of these for myself and got pages of study essays.

 

[orthodox]

I believe that this is `spinning.' I certainly did not claim that Orthodoxy has not changed since well before Constantine. The problems that infest Orthodoxy and Catholicism stemmed from the post-apostolic corruption. Those problems simply continued to grow.

Care to prove that?

"Historical fact?" An unproven assertion on conjectures of Holy Spirit activity cannot be considered "historical fact."

You think we got the correct canon without the Holy Spirit's help? How?

I will agree with you that it is verified history that Orthodoxy defined a canon most Christians recognize.

Hey cool, that was what I claimed.

TSimple: by `innovating' and adding with little to no regard the New Testament churches' doctrine and practice.

And what allegedly did Orthodoxy add? Care to document it?

I do not consider the decision of the Orthodox bishops on the canon to be infallible. I do not consider Orthodoxy infallible on anything.

Oh ok, so maybe they got it wrong. That means maybe you have it wrong. Basically, you have no infallible rule of faith because it all relies on a fallible decision about what the canon is.

I am glad Orthodoxy in the fourth century dampened further damage on the canon.

Which all assumes that Orthodoxy got it right, which you have no basis for saying either way.

You are right regarding pre-150 authors. I consider them evidence: the best evidence we have.

So the scraps and incomplete evidence from pre-150 authors, whose identity and standing in the church in unprovable, is the basis for your infallible rule of faith. Sounds dodgy.

It is fallacious to contend that if someone was not Protestant that they necessarily had to be Orthodox. The early authors were NOT Orthodox as known today. They were neither Orthodox nor Protestant. They were in transition between New Testament Christian and what became Orthodox-Catholic.

Care to prove that?

I do not accept nor reject a priori. I evaluate evidence and decide for myself.

You "evaluate evidence" to decide the canon. You've really got nothing to complain about if somebody at church "evaluates evidence" and decides that Jude or 2 Peter or Hebrews or whatever is not in the canon do you?

Like any other Christian group, Orthodoxy can be wrong on one thing and right on another.

So scripture is wrong, and the church is not to be led into all truth (Jn 16:13).

Revelation is cited in 1 Clement. 2 Peter I found references elsewhere.

And Iranaeus, (c. 170 AD) quoted Shepherd of Hermas as scripture. Oh, but this is 20 years outside of your highly arbitrary 150 AD cut off date, right?

Mark 16:9-20 is forged and not Scripture. In addition to the manuscript evidence, there is also the historical evidence you have pointed out: no references to distinctive text in that forgery before 150.

Boy, if every passage without reference before 150 gets the chop, you're going to have a very thin bible.

I think you'd find a lot of Christians disagreeing with you, even at your own church about whether this is scripture (whether or not it is original), certainly you will not find agreement among baptists.

And you've got no basis for complaining about somebody else's evaluation about this passage or other passages claimed by the Jesus seminar to be late, or whole books for that matter. You've got no basis for agreeing on the subject of infallible revelation.

John 7:53-8:11 I have not looked into because of the manuscript evidence and because 7:52 and 8:12 flow into each other without the insertion, while with the insertion 8:12 starts mid-narration to an audience that was not there at 8:11. I consider it an insertion.

Indeed it's probably an insertion later than the rest of John. But that doesn't even begin to answer the question of whether it is scripture or not. Can you prove to me it is or is not scripture? What are you going to do at church if somebody cites it to you as an authority, are you going to say "Sorry, that isn't scripture for me?"

 

[Darron Steele]

Care to prove that?



You think we got the correct canon without the Holy Spirit's help? How?

I do not KNOW if we have the correct canon. I think the Orthodox church did a fairly good job, however, using whatever means they used.

Hey cool, that was what I claimed.

Did I not clearly state that I was agreeing with what you communicated?

And what allegedly did Orthodoxy add? Care to document it?

Well, I can start:
Air baptism,
Prayers to Mary,
Prayers to images -- limited to 2-D at present in Orthodoxy,
Baptism of non-believers/non-repentants when baptizing infants,
Monarchial bishops leading congregations -- not multiple leaders,
Triune baptism.

Oh ok, so maybe they got it wrong. That means maybe you have it wrong. Basically, you have no infallible rule of faith because it all relies on a fallible decision about what the canon is.

That is called faith.

So you would have someone doubt the Bible if s/he doubts the Orthodox Church. This seems like putting the Orthodox Church as more important than the written Word of God!

It is fallacious to contend that if someone was not Protestant that they necessarily had to be Orthodox. The early authors were NOT Orthodox as known today. They were neither Orthodox nor Protestant. They were in transition between New Testament Christian and what became Orthodox-Catholic.

Care to prove that?

1 Clement assumed multiple leaders of congregations rather than a monarchial bishop. The Didache considered a non-immersion procedure for baptism ceremonies second rate but still a legitimate way to baptize.

You "evaluate evidence" to decide the canon. You've really got nothing to complain about if somebody at church "evaluates evidence" and decides that Jude or 2 Peter or Hebrews or whatever is not in the canon do you?

I could complain that s/he does so evaluating evidence wrongly. I would, however, have no grounds to scorn that person.

So scripture is wrong, and the church is not to be led into all truth (Jn 16:13).

That statement was only to the disciples. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism lay claim to that verse despite their different "truths." The verse is completely accurate and applies to neither group.

Boy, if every passage without reference before 150 gets the chop, you're going to have a very thin bible.

I typically decide based upon book. However, on every passage that some manuscripts do not have, I do consider whether or not there is evidence that it existed before 150.

I think you'd find a lot of Christians disagreeing with you, even at your own church about whether this is scripture (whether or not it is original), certainly you will not find agreement among baptists.

And you've got no basis for complaining about somebody else's evaluation about this passage or other passages claimed by the Jesus seminar to be late, or whole books for that matter. You've got no basis for agreeing on the subject of infallible revelation.

I do not attend a Baptist church.

I can always disagree with someone's assessment of the evidence.

I have something called FAITH in Scripture. I no longer need 100% of the answers to believe and have not for several years.

Indeed it's probably an insertion later than the rest of John. But that doesn't even begin to answer the question of whether it is scripture or not. Can you prove to me it is or is not scripture? What are you going to do at church if somebody cites it to you as an authority, are you going to say "Sorry, that isn't scripture for me?"

If it was not in the original publication "breathed out by God" 2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV), it is not Scripture.

That is pretty much what I do with everything after Mark 16:8. I would do the same for what is inserted between John 7:52 and 8:12. I either say nothing or voice the sentiment that it is not Scripture -- period: not for me, not for anyone.

As for reaction, I am not called to please people -- while I avoid trying to offend usually, setting aside what is true to help myself grovel for people's approval is not what I should do.

 

[orthodox]

I do not KNOW if we have the correct canon. I think the Orthodox church did a fairly good job, however, using whatever means they used.

A fairly good job. Wow. For all you know, they missed out a half a dozen now-lost gospels, and put in who-knows how much heretical lies.

Well, I can start:
Air baptism,

What is air baptism? The Orthodox church baptizes by immersion.

Prayers to Mary,

Mary was alive when the NT was written, and the saints talked to her. We still do. We havn't changed, why have you???

Prayers to images -- limited to 2-D at present in Orthodoxy,

Non sequitur - we don't pray to images.

Baptism of non-believers/non-repentants when baptizing infants,

Please document that the church has changed its practice. Twice in Acts whole families are baptised into the church. The church follows this example.

Monarchial bishops leading congregations -- not multiple leaders,

The church started off as a monarchy with the apostles as the monarchy, and the church hasn't changed. Plus I can cite Ignatius in 98AD who says there was a monarchial bishopric, which handily gets in under your 150AD cut off date.

Triune baptism.

Huh? This is in scripture, Mt 28.

That is called faith.

Faith is better when based on reason.

So you would have someone doubt the Bible if s/he doubts the Orthodox Church. This seems like putting the Orthodox Church as more important than the written Word of God!

Well before there was a canon, before even there was scripture, there was the church. Scripture does not properly function without the church. I wouldn't "have" people doubt the scripture without the church, I just point out the obvious that the infallibility of the bible relies on the infallibility of the church's perceiving what scripture is.

1 Clement assumed multiple leaders of congregations rather than a monarchial bishop.

All 1 Clement says is that there were presbyters in Corinth. That doesn't mean there was no bishop over them. In the city I live in there are multiple presbyters, and the bishop over us is in a different city. 1 Clement doesn't prove your case.

On the other hand, Ignatius, which dates from the exact same period is very clear that there ARE monarchial bishops. So I'm afraid you failed on that one.

The Didache considered a non-immersion procedure for baptism ceremonies second rate but still a legitimate way to baptize.

So you're complaining that Orthodoxy baptises by immersion?

I could complain that s/he does so evaluating evidence wrongly. I would, however, have no grounds to scorn that person.

So tell me about the "evidence" that Jude is scripture. That would be instructive.

That statement was only to the disciples. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism lay claim to that verse despite their different "truths." The verse is completely accurate and applies to neither group.

The difference is that western catholicism keeps changing the truth, and that can be documented. So far you have failed to document Orthodoxy changing the truth.

I typically decide based upon book. However, on every passage that some manuscripts do not have, I do consider whether or not there is evidence that it existed before 150.

Mere existence is good enough? You could really pad out your bible with extra material that way.

I can always disagree with someone's assessment of the evidence.

That makes it impossible there'll be any unity in the church since everybody has a right to their own canon.

I have something called FAITH in Scripture. I no longer need 100% of the answers to believe and have not for several years.

You complain that I have FAITH in the church, and yet you have faith in yourself that YOU have perceived the right canon. I'd rather have faith in the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Christ built, than in myself.

If it was not in the original publication "breathed out by God" 2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV), it is not Scripture.

Regardless of whether it was originally interspersed in the text of John, please prove that John 7:52-8:12 was not "breathed out by God".

 

[Eric B]

Why do I have to show why it was done? All I have to show is that the traditions were authoritative. The speculators can speculate about why.

Well now you're into speculation land. You're right that the scripture says to hold fast to both the traditions and the written, but now you're into an extra-scriptural speculation about what is in the oral traditions.

The fact is, scripture says to hold to the oral traditions, but you won't do it. That seems strange since you claim to follow scripture.

Not "Why it was done", but why you think it is a separate body of teaching to begin with. It is your side that is in speculation land! Just look at another one of your examples, in 2 Thess.3:6 "withdraw youselves from every brother that walks disorderly and not after the tradition whch he received from us". Here, rather than some hidden doctrines or practices that were never covered in the epistles, the text tells us what that "tradition" is--"walking orderly", with a specific example in v.8ff. And we see this teaching elsewhere in the NT. So we do hold to such "traditions". It's up to you to prove that anything else beside that was apart of it.

The church started off as a monarchy with the apostles as the monarchy, and the church hasn't changed. Plus I can cite Ignatius in 98AD who says there was a monarchial bishopric, which handily gets in under your 150AD cut off date.

They were not a "monarchy". "You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them...but it shall not be so among you, but whomever will be chief among you, let him be your servant". (Matt.20:25-27)

There was no other "body of Christ" besides what you choose to call the worldly church,

The Body of Christ are the true Spirit-born believers in Christ; not a state organization that was constructed around that body.

 

[Darron Steele]

What is air baptism? The Orthodox church baptizes by immersion.

It is an emergency system of "baptizing" infants when water would not be safe. It is to be replaced by a ceremony involving water as soon as possible.

Stamatis, D. H. A Catechetical Handbook Of The Eastern Orthodox Church. Minneapolis: Light & Life Publishing Company, 2003; page 194.

Mary was alive when the NT was written, and the saints talked to her. We still do. We havn't changed, why have you???

Mary is not on the earth anymore. Nowhere in Scripture are we seen praying to anyone but God.

Non sequitur - we don't pray to images.

You are right technically. You pray to whomever is represented by those images you are engaging in worship-like veneration of.

This idolatrously-motivated practice is not in Scripture.

Please document that the church has changed its practice. Twice in Acts whole families are baptised into the church. The church follows this example.

In one of the passages, Acts 16:30-4 it is clearly stated that the whole household believed. Nowhere in Scripture is any non-believer baptized. It follows that of the other whole family, all were likely believers.

Scripture calls for baptism only after biblical faith in the Gospel.

The church started off as a monarchy with the apostles as the monarchy, and the church hasn't changed. Plus I can cite Ignatius in 98AD who says there was a monarchial bishopric, which handily gets in under your 150AD cut off date.

Were there not 12 apostles -- not one.

Huh? This is in scripture, Mt 28.

Three dippings is not called for in Scripture.

Well before there was a canon, before even there was scripture, there was the church. Scripture does not properly function without the church. I wouldn't "have" people doubt the scripture without the church, I just point out the obvious that the infallibility of the bible relies on the infallibility of the church's perceiving what scripture is.

The Old Testament was finished before the church started. Hence, Scripture existed before the church.

If the authority of Scripture depends upon a church that does not follow it, you are actually arguing against its infallibility.

My faith in Scripture is based upon its ultimate Author. The same Author who told us of events hundreds of years in advance and Who performs miracles is the author of Scripture.

All 1 Clement says is that there were presbyters in Corinth. That doesn't mean there was no bishop over them. In the city I live in there are multiple presbyters, and the bishop over us is in a different city. 1 Clement doesn't prove your case.

On the other hand, Ignatius, which dates from the exact same period is very clear that there ARE monarchial bishops. So I'm afraid you failed on that one.

In the New Testament, every congregation was run by multiple presbyters. 1 Clement is written as a "we" and the authors simply "the church of God which sojourns in Rome" at the opening. The letters of Ignatius, written to eastern churches and to Rome, mention monarchial bishops -- except in the letter to Rome. The system of monarchial bishop is an addition that came from the east and headed west.

So you're complaining that Orthodoxy baptises by immersion?

Actually, I had a problem with the fact that the Didache considered any mode other than immersion acceptable. That was clearly my objection.

As for all of us documenting evidence, I believe you have more to prove than we do. We go on the Scriptures which the New Testament church followed from the very beginning. When Orthodoxy is a lot more complex, involved, and inflated than a Christianity based only upon Scripture, I believe that it is YOU who has to prove this: things for which there is no early evidence have actually been there since the beginning.

Getting people to rethink faith in Scripture to get them to accept Orthodoxy is actually more likely to get people to doubt Scripture. The fact that you are willing to have people rethink their belief in Scripture suggests that to you, Scripture is only of secondary importance.

 

[mcdirector]

snip . . .
I honestly think some have too many hang ups on translations, and looking beyond what God has to say to us in this century.
. . . snip

Amen Bro Jim!

 

[orthodox]

Not "Why it was done", but why you think it is a separate body of teaching to begin with. It is your side that is in speculation land!

Huh? The bible says to hold to the traditions. I obey the bible and hold to the traditions. Whether the traditions are a separate body or the same body is something for the theologians to contemplate along with their belly button. For me, I just obey the bible. Paul's admonition is very clear - hold to the tradition WHETHER given by word of mouth OR written. He didn't say "Hold only to the written, because everything has been written". That is the exact opposite of what he did in fact say.

Just look at another one of your examples, in 2 Thess.3:6 "withdraw youselves from every brother that walks disorderly and not after the tradition whch he received from us". Here, rather than some hidden doctrines or practices that were never covered in the epistles, the text tells us what that "tradition" is--"walking orderly", with a specific example in v.8ff.

v.8ff is just that - an EXAMPLE. Paul never limits the verse to the written traditions, he specifically includes oral tradition. What gives you the right to ride rough-shod over scripture?

And we see this teaching elsewhere in the NT. So we do hold to such "traditions". It's up to you to prove that anything else beside that was apart of it.

Paul is very specific that we have to hold to the traditions WHETHER by word of mouth OR written. According to you he talks nonsense because everything is written. That is illogical and contrary to what he actually said.

They were not a "monarchy". "You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them...but it shall not be so among you, but whomever will be chief among you, let him be your servant". (Matt.20:25-27)

Uh huh, and leaders in the church are servants. Is it not so with the leaders in your church? What are you talking about?

The Body of Christ are the true Spirit-born believers in Christ; not a state organization that was constructed around that body.

A state organization? What wierd tangent are you off on now?

 

[orthodox]

It is an emergency system of "baptizing" infants when water would not be safe. It is to be replaced by a ceremony involving water as soon as possible.
Stamatis, D. H. A Catechetical Handbook Of The Eastern Orthodox Church. Minneapolis: Light & Life Publishing Company, 2003; page 194.

And the significance is what? I await the proof that this was something new. Being as it is an unusual situation, you will have a hard time proving that.

Mary is not on the earth anymore. Nowhere in Scripture are we seen praying to anyone but God.

Not true! For someone accusing the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of not following the bible, you don't know as much as you ought!

"Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21).

"Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

You are right technically. You pray to whomever is represented by those images you are engaging in worship-like veneration of.
This idolatrously-motivated practice is not in Scripture.

It is not "worship-like veneration". Do you have photographs of your family? If you were away from home, would you pull out the photos and pray for them?

Icons date from the very earliest days of the church, and were considered normal just like a photograph is considered normal today. Would you complain if someone put a group photograph of your church on the noticeboard?

Utilizing images is scriptural. There are numerous instances within the scriptures that describe the manufacture and utilization of images within the context of religious use (The angels on the Ark of the Covenant, the silver snake Moses puts in a tree, etc). What is important to note is that none of these are worshiped as God.

Let me ask you: Why do you prohibit what scripture allows and promotes?

In one of the passages, Acts 16:30-4 it is clearly stated that the whole household believed. Nowhere in Scripture is any non-believer baptized. It follows that of the other whole family, all were likely believers.

"Likely" believers?? The fact is that you don't know what age they were and what level of child-like faith they may have been exercising, and you don't know if anywhere in scripture a child was baptized.

Now you say that believers were baptized, but will you baptize a believing three year old child? Suffer the little children to come to me? If the New Testament didn't intend to baptize children, there would logically have to be some general guidance about what age you CAN baptize somebody. If believing is the criteria, I don't see many baptists baptizing three year olds who believe.

The fact is, scripture doesn't address this issue, thus resulting in a divided protestant world. Your fellow Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican protestants who claim to hold to sola scriptura, think you are wrong. This is why you need Holy Tradition, because obviously you have failed to resolve it with scripture.

Anyway, I await you to show us the firm proof from the early church that this practice was changed.

Were there not 12 apostles -- not one.

Uh yeah, and we don't have one bishop either. Your point is what?

Three dippings is not called for in Scripture.

Is three dippings prohibited? Is it bad? In Acts everybody was baptising in the name of Jesus, yet in Mt 28 Jesus commands baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. Is this minor variation a big deal? Does it invalidate the baptism in your eyes? If not, what is the complaint?

The Old Testament was finished before the church started. Hence, Scripture existed before the church.

The old testament ecclesia existed before the old testament. The new testament ecclesia existed before the new testament. How did the church know what to do prior to the NT being written? Didn't they hold to the oral traditions of the apostles? Who said they should stop?

If the authority of Scripture depends upon a church that does not follow it, you are actually arguing against its infallibility.

But we do follow it.

My faith in Scripture is based upon its ultimate Author. The same Author who told us of events hundreds of years in advance and Who performs miracles is the author of Scripture.

But you are reliant on us to tell you which books are authored by God.

In the New Testament, every congregation was run by multiple presbyters. 1 Clement is written as a "we" and the authors simply "the church of God which sojourns in Rome" at the opening.

For whatever reason, bishops of Rome, right from the beginning have often-times written with a kind of "royal we" to indicate that he speaks for the Roman church. Here is a letter from Pope Leo speaking in terms of "we":

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.i.html

And yet nobody in their wildest dreams would dispute that the monarchial episcopate didn't exist in pope Leo's time. So why is it evidence for Clement's time? It's not.

The letters of Ignatius, written to eastern churches and to Rome, mention monarchial bishops -- except in the letter to Rome. The system of monarchial bishop is an addition that came from the east and headed west.

Whatever the reason Ignatius doesn't specifically refer to the Roman bishop, it is certainly NOT because he doesn't believe there is one, because he says in Chapter III of his Epistle to the Ephesians, that bishops are settled "EVERYWHERE, to the UTMOST BOUNDS of the earth". Trying to make Ignatius contradict himself is not a valid argumentation.

Actually, I had a problem with the fact that the Didache considered any mode other than immersion acceptable. That was clearly my objection.

If you have a problem with the Didache, what relevance is that to this discussion?

As for all of us documenting evidence, I believe you have more to prove than we do. We go on the Scriptures which the New Testament church followed from the very beginning. When Orthodoxy is a lot more complex, involved, and inflated than a Christianity based only upon Scripture, I believe that it is YOU who has to prove this: things for which there is no early evidence have actually been there since the beginning.

But Christianity was NEVER based only on scripture, or at least not until the protestants came along. Paul says to hold to the oral traditions, and that commandment has never been recinded. You don't find the early church fathers debating about whether child baptism is ok or not, because Holy Tradition was unambiguous. Protestants have come up with a theological novelty.

Let me ask you, would you have been Orthodox had you lived a thousand years ago in Byzantium?

Getting people to rethink faith in Scripture to get them to accept Orthodoxy is actually more likely to get people to doubt Scripture. The fact that you are willing to have people rethink their belief in Scripture suggests that to you, Scripture is only of secondary importance.

I'm not asking you to rethink faith in scripture, I'm asking you to consider that you are reliant on Holy Tradition and face up to it, instead of avoiding it.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am only going to address a few of your points since your best answers to my points help my point.

It is not "worship-like veneration". Do you have photographs of your family? If you were away from home, would you pull out the photos and pray for them?

I do not bow before them, pray to them, or engage in acts of religious adoration to them.

I also do not pray to any person living or dead who is not God.

But we do follow it.

-- regarding Scripture. The "baptism" of non-believers is contrary to Scripture which outlines a pattern of baptizing only converts and only to accompany conversion. As you well know, the Orthodox church "baptizes" babies not even old enough to understand speech.

If you have a problem with the Didache, what relevance is that to this discussion?

I was afraid my original point on the Didache would get lost as you seemed to avoid it. You claimed that the pre-150 writers were all Orthodox. I pointed out how the Didache accepted the legitimacy of a non-immersion mode of "baptism." It was less preferred, but still called for. This is at variance with Orthodox tradition, which RIGHTLY calls for immersion only as the Greek text requires. This also demonstrates that the author of the Didache was NOT Orthodox.

Let me ask you, would you have been Orthodox had you lived a thousand years ago in Byzantium?

Probably -- I would not have known of anything different.

I'm not asking you to rethink faith in scripture, I'm asking you to consider that you are reliant on Holy Tradition and face up to it, instead of avoiding it.

The effect of your question is to say `Why do you believe Scripture?' and a challenge to rethink the basis of our belief in it.

It may not be your intention, but it is definitely an effect.

 

[orthodox]

I am only going to address a few of your points since your best answers to my points help my point.

Sounds like you are bailing out on me.

I do not bow before them, pray to them, or engage in acts of religious adoration to them.

What is "religious" adoration? You adore your family right? You talk to them?

I also do not pray to any person living or dead who is not God.

I know you don't, the question is why. Even aften I've shown you in scripture the saints talking to angelic creatures.

Scripture assumes that the saints are involved in Christian's prayer life. In Rev 5:8 the saints offer Christian's prayers to God. The question is, why do you deny the saint's involvement when it is laid out in scripture?

-- regarding Scripture. The "baptism" of non-believers is contrary to Scripture which outlines a pattern of baptizing only converts and only to accompany conversion. As you well know, the Orthodox church "baptizes" babies not even old enough to understand speech.

There is no verse that says only to baptize those old enough, according to some very arbitrary definition of "old enough". The only "pattern" found in scripture, is the baptism of whole households found in two cases in Acts as well as 1 Cor 1:16. There is no record of half a household getting baptized. You are denying Mt 19:14 which says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children. Answer me plainly - do you baptize little children, yes or no? If not, why do you disobey scripture?

There is no need for me to prove that scripture does not speak to this issue, because the empirical evidence is clear. The sola scriptura camp cannot agree, and the majority of the sola scriptura protestants are in the baby baptizing Anglican, presbyterian and Lutheran camp.

I was afraid my original point on the Didache would get lost as you seemed to avoid it. You claimed that the pre-150 writers were all Orthodox. I pointed out how the Didache accepted the legitimacy of a non-immersion mode of "baptism." It was less preferred, but still called for. This is at variance with Orthodox tradition, which RIGHTLY calls for immersion only as the Greek text requires. This also demonstrates that the author of the Didache was NOT Orthodox.

Again you show your lack of knowledge about the Church.

"the Orthodox Church itself can and does recognize baptism by infusion as valid in cases of emergency;" http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/Orth-Cath_Agreed.aspx

Just like the Didache says.

Probably -- I would not have known of anything different.

Basically, you have got your own set of traditions now which you have become attached to. The trouble is, they are not the apostolic traditions.

Hey, I know how it feels. I was a baptist for ten years. Once I would have been putting forward the same arguments as you are now. I suggest you do more investigation of the Orthodox church, because you could afford to know a lot more.-

 

[Taufgesinnter]

I also do not pray to any person living or dead who is not God.



I was afraid my original point on the Didache would get lost as you seemed to avoid it. You claimed that the pre-150 writers were all Orthodox. I pointed out how the Didache accepted the legitimacy of a non-immersion mode of "baptism." It was less preferred, but still called for. This is at variance with Orthodox tradition, which RIGHTLY calls for immersion only as the Greek text requires. This also demonstrates that the author of the Didache was NOT Orthodox.

First, pray means petition--you never ask anyone living or dead but God for anything?

Second, our decidedly conservative priest trine-immersed all us catechumens--except a disabled lady with whom that would be impossible. So, of course, she was baptized by having water poured over her head three times in the name of the Trinity.

 

[Eric B]

Huh? The bible says to hold to the traditions. I obey the bible and hold to the traditions. Whether the traditions are a separate body or the same body is something for the theologians to contemplate along with their belly button. For me, I just obey the bible. Paul's admonition is very clear - hold to the tradition WHETHER given by word of mouth OR written. He didn't say "Hold only to the written, because everything has been written". That is the exact opposite of what he did in fact say.

v.8ff is just that - an EXAMPLE. Paul never limits the verse to the written traditions, he specifically includes oral tradition. What gives you the right to ride rough-shod over scripture?

Paul is very specific that we have to hold to the traditions WHETHER by word of mouth OR written. According to you he talks nonsense because everything is written. That is illogical and contrary to what he actually said.

A state organization? What wierd tangent are you off on now?

Your response still presupposes an entitrely separate body of teaching omitted from the writing in the first place. Since it is your church that hypothesizes that, it is up to you to prove it or why it would be so, not me to that it was not. The only example we have shows that it was common teaching. They were both written and spoken. That does not make it nonsense. Whichever way you receive it, follow it.

This seems to be a retrospective attempt to place your church above the realm of testability to justify practices that are not written. How would we know what these omitted traditions are? Just because your church says so. No way to test it, like we are told in scripture.

I'm not the one ruunning roughshod over scripture when you suggest to Darron that scripture is inefficient because of all the division. Tradition did not prevent Rome from splitting off, and even the East is divided into regional factions. So you all are agreed on a bunch of things not written, but still divided on other issues.

 

[Darron Steele]

Sounds like you are bailing out on me.

Not really. I just prefer to spend my time with productive conversation. The reader can decide between our challenges and answers. I am perfectly content that with most of them, conversions away from Scripture-based denominations will not happen. I am more interested in other thread topics -- such as Church of Christ versus Baptist issues, where Scripture is the basis.

What is "religious" adoration? You adore your family right? You talk to them?

Okay: I will pretend that you really do not know. "Religious adoration" means worship-like activity beyond what we normally do with living people but which we would do toward God.

There is no verse that says only to baptize those old enough, according to some very arbitrary definition of "old enough". The only "pattern" found in scripture, is the baptism of whole households found in two cases in Acts as well as 1 Cor 1:16. There is no record of half a household getting baptized. You are denying Mt 19:14 which says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children. Answer me plainly - do you baptize little children, yes or no? If not, why do you disobey scripture?

Scripture indicates that the Kingdom of God belongs to children. They already have it. We need to do nothing in this regard.

We follow Scripture by baptizing in order: conversion, then baptism. We do not baptize unbelievers.

Matthew 28:19-20 indicates that we are to be trying to make disciples, so we need to be teaching children about Jesus. At some point, a child matures enough to be able to understand the need for the Gospel and its significance. At this point, the child can "believe" or "not believe." When that child believes, s/he becomes a believer and then and only then should s/he be baptized.

There is no need for me to prove that scripture does not speak to this issue, because the empirical evidence is clear. The sola scriptura camp cannot agree, and the majority of the sola scriptura protestants are in the baby baptizing Anglican, presbyterian and Lutheran camp.

Some Protestants are more willing to follow 1 Corinthians 4:6 than others. Some Bible-only non-Protestant Christians are likewise.

It does not negate the fact that the Greek text literally names a precept called "the not beyond what has been written" (McReynolds, Word Study Greek-English New Testament. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999; ISBN 0-8423-8290-9; page 603).

Again you show your lack of knowledge about the Church.

"the Orthodox Church itself can and does recognize baptism by infusion as valid in cases of emergency;" http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/Orth-Cath_Agreed.aspx

Just like the Didache says.

I apologize.

The Didache, however, suggests that emergency is not the issue. It is the availability of water that allows for the exception to immersion. It also indicates that a fast of at least one day must precede baptism, which does not indicate emergency situations. Hence, the author of the Didache would disagree with this emergency qualification.

On the other hand, if the Orthodox are claiming Scripture as an Orthodox document, they depart from it when they in any way recognize as valid a baptism by any method than what the Greek Scriptures call for: immersion.

I suggest you do more investigation of the Orthodox church, because you could afford to know a lot more.-

I would love to learn more of the Orthodox. I could always afford to learn more about any Christian tradition.

 

[orthodox]

Your response still presupposes an entitrely separate body of teaching omitted from the writing in the first place. Since it is your church that hypothesizes that, it is up to you to prove it or why it would be so, not me to that it was not. The only example we have shows that it was common teaching. They were both written and spoken. That does not make it nonsense. Whichever way you receive it, follow it.

I'm not seeing a lot of interaction here with what the bible actually says:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

It specifically says to hold BOTH kinds of traditions, written and oral. Can you explain to me why I have to justify the wisdom of following both kinds of tradition, when scripture says to do it? If scripture says not to commit adultery, do you reject it until someone proves why that is a good teaching? Scripture ought to be enough authority for you.

I can give you some suggestions why we are to hold to the oral tradition - because that way the church can hold to the interpretation of scripture which is the common understanding of the church, and not be tossed around by every wind of doctrine, but grow up in Christ from whom the whole body is building itself up. (Eph 4:14-16).

What we see in the current age is new churches springing up disputing every interpretation that was agreed upon in the church for its first 1500 years. The church didn't suddenly discover scripture in the 16th century. The early church fathers were smart folks, and they agreed on many many issues that were never ever disputed till the reformation. And even the things that the reformers would never have questioned, have been questioned again later by new churches springing up. So we've got churches again disputing the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, when you should be baptized, at what age you can take communion, what communion is, what books are canonical, what will happen in the end times, the physical resurrection and on and on. In short, every doctrine of the Christian religion.

I think if you think a little bit harder you will see the reason for holding to the traditions - it provides unity in the church.

This seems to be a retrospective attempt to place your church above the realm of testability to justify practices that are not written. How would we know what these omitted traditions are? Just because your church says so. No way to test it, like we are told in scripture.

You talk about "my church", but for a thousand years it wasn't your church vs my church it was THE Church.

Tradition also provides the means for testing tradition. That which is catholic (universal) and has antiquity in the teaching of the church fathers. See St. Vincent of Lerins, in his fifth century treatise entitled The Commonitory. (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.aspx)

For example, nobody in the early church ever disputed infant baptism. It was a practice of the universal church. You may claim it wasn't because scripture doesn't specifically state the ages of various families baptised and so on. And you will argue that case, and the rest of the church will argue from the Jewish practice of including those of all ages in initiation rites. But there is no doubt as far as Tradition is concerned.

I'm not the one ruunning roughshod over scripture when you suggest to Darron that scripture is inefficient because of all the division.

It's not a matter of it being "inefficient", it is a matter of recognizing that scripture has been taken out of its home. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and told them to hold to what he wrote AND to what he told them. The church was unified for over a thousand years. Then some people came along and decided to take scripture out of the church it came from and interpret it outside of its home and now every doctrine known to man is up for grabs.

Tradition did not prevent Rome from splitting off, and even the East is divided into regional factions.

As far as Rome is concerned, it is up to you to decide if the catholic faith as found in the early church fathers granted Rome the powers that it now claims. Still, the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy are fairly limited compared to the differences now evident. I do not believe you will be able to find even the smallest difference between 4th century practice and current practice in Orthodoxy. You will find I think some differences to Roman Catholicism over the centuries, which are more or less apparent. As for what you call the "Eastern factions", there is actually very little at all disputed by the other non-Orthodox eastern churches, and indications are that there may well be full unity soon.

So you all are agreed on a bunch of things not written, but still divided on other issues.

The West has elevated the papacy above tradition. We think tradition itself makes that obvious by examining the early teachings of the church.