My church defined your church's bible

[orthodox]

Its not that I do not follow traditions; its that you have not proven your traditions were really taught by the apostles.
I believe in holding church councils, so I don't know where you get that from.

LOL, anyone can hold a council. The real skill is in FOLLOWING the council. If you believe in councils why don't you follow the 7 great councils of the church? Or do we find yet again you won't submit to any authority, even one instituted by scripture?

I do find it funny that you do not consider the Jerusalem council to be the first of the Seven,
but rather [the politically infused] Nicea instead, which can make a strong argument that the Church of that time and later was already (almost admittedly) a different institution from the apostles.

Is there a point somewhere here?

And I do obey authorities. Maybe not yours, but then neither do I follow JW or Mormon authorities.

Oh sure, everybody follows authorites, even if that authority is the self. The question is where the authority is vested from. JW authority is the Russell's authority and his successors, baptists follow John Smyth and his successors. But what kind of authority is that? You may as well follow your own authority.

And I believe the Spirit guided the Church of all ages, but just like now with all our carnal division, we did not always completely listen to Him, hence the unbiblical tradition of the past.

No, you believe that the Church did not ever completely listen to Him. Which makes me wonder what makes you think you've finally nailed it, since 1500 years of Christians couldn't figure it out.

Now what are these "unbiblical traditions" you refer to?

You're the one assuming that some generations of the entire Church were perfectly obedient, and then it all broke loose at some point, except for those who followed whatever the oldest group(s) taught. In reality, one age listened to the Spirit in one area (unity), and did what they wanted elsewhere, and another age simply swapped one area for the other.

Really. Well you've been complaining that there is supposedly insufficient evidence to support my position, but now I whif the aroma of hypocrisy. So prove to me without a doubt that the modern age has followed the Spirit in an area Orthodoxy has not.

You sound like the one speculating now. Anyway, I pretty much followed your rule of "consensus" on that one. The entire Church today agrees on the 66 books; not everyone agrees on the other books, and to compare total nonbelievers' arguments with Spirit-led Christians doesn't mean anything.

So lowest common denominator is the rule of faith? In that case those who accepted Revelation into the canon were in error, since it was previously a minority view. And Luther's attempt to discern the 1st C Jewish canon was in error, he should have gone with the lowest common denominator Saducee canon of the Pentatuch. And the early Christians erred in their canon since they accepted books that the Marcionites rejected.

Sorry, but this reductionism only destroys your own position.

"What if", basically. OK, I always ask "what if", for any claim I run across. And yours just does not have enough proof for me to assume it is true.

Ok, don't assume we are right, assume you are right. Now tell me what Paul or Christ would say about your lack of care about their instructions.

This debate is no different than the ones with the sabbathkeepers, the Church of Christ, and fundies on hymns only or no fermented beverages. Perhaps you should consider that you are closer to those groups and Diotrophes in spirit, and thus just as apart of the problem of schism.

Just remember it was the apostle, belonging to an group external to that of Diotrophes, who was bringing down authority and truth upon him. No doubt Diotrophes was content to be left alone, just like you.

 

[Eliyahu]

If you were worshipping idols, you wouldn't be Roman Catholic by definition. So it looks like you are already confused. See how tricky it is?

My Bible defines Roman Catholic as Idol Worshippers, as Heretic !

So does your Bible !

 

[Eric B]

LOL, anyone can hold a council. The real skill is in FOLLOWING the council. If you believe in councils why don't you follow the 7 great councils of the church? Or do we find yet again you won't submit to any authority, even one instituted by scripture?

Oh sure, everybody follows authorites, even if that authority is the self. The question is where the authority is vested from. JW authority is the Russell's authority and his successors, baptists follow John Smyth and his successors. But what kind of authority is that? You may as well follow your own authority.

[Why Jerusalem coulcil not apart of Seven]
Is there a point somewhere here?

Uh, yes, and that peecisely what I've said: that your councils admittedly are not successors to the Apostolic council, and scriptural authority (but rather of a politicized institution) so why should I follow them? Just add them to the list of those other authorities.

Now what are these "unbiblical traditions" you refer to?

The ones you insist I follow, even if they're not in the Bible, yet haven't proven.

No, you believe that the Church did not ever completely listen to Him. Which makes me wonder what makes you think you've finally nailed it, since 1500 years of Christians couldn't figure it out.

Really. Well you've been complaining that there is supposedly insufficient evidence to support my position, but now I whif the aroma of hypocrisy. So prove to me without a doubt that the modern age has followed the Spirit in an area Orthodoxy has not.

And do I detect a whiff of dishonesty, as I did not say we had it all together, but cleary said we have our own
problem areas (such as all the schism). You're shooting at a straw man now.

So lowest common denominator is the rule of faith? In that case those who accepted Revelation into the canon were in error, since it was previously a minority view. And Luther's attempt to discern the 1st C Jewish canon was in error, he should have gone with the lowest common denominator Saducee canon of the Pentatuch. And the early Christians erred in their canon since they accepted books that the Marcionites rejected.

Sorry, but this reductionism only destroys your own position.

I was answering your question of why I accept the canon I do. You're mentioning relatively small discrepancies that are long gone. That has nothing to do with today.

Ok, don't assume we are right, assume you are right. Now tell me what Paul or Christ would say about your lack of care about their instructions.

if I'm right, I am not showing lack of care of their instructions (which presumes you are right!!!).

Just remember it was the apostle, belonging to an group external to that of Diotrophes, who was bringing down authority and truth upon him. No doubt Diotrophes was content to be left alone, just like you.

And the Church of Christ, sabbathkeepers, old line IFB fundies, JW's, etc can all say the same thing, and so could Diotrophes, to the congregation he was entering and taking over. This further identies you as thinking like them. None of you are the Apostles.

 

[orthodox]

My Bible defines Roman Catholic as Idol Worshippers, as Heretic !

So does your Bible !

I've never come across a verse that defines Roman Catholics.

 

[orthodox]

Uh, yes, and that peecisely what I've said: that your councils admittedly are not successors to the Apostolic council, and scriptural authority (but rather of a politicized institution) so why should I follow them? Just add them to the list of those other authorities.

Who admitted such a thing? This is just a deversion from the point you follow only part of scripture.

The ones you insist I follow, even if they're not in the Bible, yet haven't proven.

Unlike your own churches unbiblical practices, like oh say refusing to baptise children, even if they are believers and the unbiblical sola scriptura theory?

And do I detect a whiff of dishonesty, as I did not say we had it all together, but cleary said we have our own
problem areas (such as all the schism). You're shooting at a straw man now.

So you refuse the challenge to prove to me without a doubt that the modern age has followed the Spirit in an area Orthodoxy has not. That means we could be 100% correct in all our claims, and your only hope to be in the truth is that the Holy Spirit was not leading the Church.

Where is the verse again that says the Spirit will lead the early Church into all truth, but then abandon the Church for 1500 years?

I was answering your question of why I accept the canon I do. You're mentioning relatively small discrepancies that are long gone. That has nothing to do with today.

Arguments about the "apocrypha" were long gone between 500 and 1500AD as you didn't dispute. But apparently you hold the doctrine that one man (Luther) can resurrect them. So the comparison is exactly the same. Anybody apparently can revisit the canon, and they don't need any proofs to do it. Whatever seems good in your own eyes.

if I'm right, I am not showing lack of care of their instructions (which presumes you are right!!!).

Oh right, because they only wanted obedience to the "have faith" teaching. Everything else was just filler.

And the Church of Christ, sabbathkeepers, old line IFB fundies, JW's, etc can all say the same thing, and so could Diotrophes, to the congregation he was entering and taking over. This further identies you as thinking like them. None of you are the Apostles.

Unlike those other groups, the apostles passed on their authority to us. How do we know? Because the bible says the authority was to be passed on, and no other group can historically claim it. You really think the WatchTower has an equal claim to receiving the apostolic authority as we do?

 

[Eric B]

Unlike those other groups, the apostles passed on their authority to us. How do we know? Because the bible says the authority was to be passed on, and no other group can historically claim it. You really think the WatchTower has an equal claim to receiving the apostolic authority as we do?

Who admitted such a thing? This is just a deversion from the point you follow only part of scripture.

The councils themselves unwittingly admitted it by not counting Jerusalem as the first. Why? I know it sounds diversionary, but I think that says a lot about the continuity of that period of the Church with the Apostolic church. That's why many people claim it began with Constantine, though I know that is not completely accurate. But it is still striking that the one he was involved in is counted as number 1 and not the apostles. (and those councils are not part of scripture).

Unlike your own churches unbiblical practices, like oh say refusing to baptise children, even if they are believers and the unbiblical sola scriptura theory?

So says you. Now you're just trying to throw back something, but that was not the point.

So you refuse the challenge to prove to me without a doubt that the modern age has followed the Spirit in an area Orthodoxy has not. That means we could be 100% correct in all our claims, and your only hope to be in the truth is that the Holy Spirit was not leading the Church.

Where is the verse again that says the Spirit will lead the early Church into all truth, but then abandon the Church for 1500 years?

That issue is the true diversion, as you glossed over the point (repeated in bold) with that question and now reiterate as your whole premise that I am saying the spirit abandoned the church for 1500 years, which is not what I have said. It is not the Spirit who abandons, it is man who does what he wants, and follows the spirit selectively, and the people of that 1500 years of the Church was no less human than we today. THIS is the point, now don't forget that and keep throwing this "spirit abandoned the Church for 1500 years" straw man.

Arguments about the "apocrypha" were long gone between 500 and 1500AD as you didn't dispute. But apparently you hold the doctrine that one man (Luther) can resurrect them. So the comparison is exactly the same. Anybody apparently can revisit the canon, and they don't need any proofs to do it. Whatever seems good in your own eyes.

One of the problems here, is that you keep phrasing these things in a way where I am doing something that I am not doing. I did not choose this canon because "it seemed good in my eyes" because Luther said so. When I first became a Christian, I didn't know much about Luther. I saw one canon, held by basically everyone around, and then later ran across some extra books the RCC used sometimes, , so why should (or even how could) I have considered that canon? And I read the Apocrypha, and a book of God's Word named after Baal [Bel] and a dragon? Come on! It was easy to believe that was not canonical.

 

[orthodox]

The councils themselves unwittingly admitted it by not counting Jerusalem as the first. Why? I know it sounds diversionary, but I think that says a lot about the continuity of that period of the Church with the Apostolic church. That's why many people claim it began with Constantine, though I know that is not completely accurate. But it is still striking that the one he was involved in is counted as number 1 and not the apostles. (and those councils are not part of scripture).

It's merely the historical curiousity that Eusebius coined the term in 338 when discussing Nicea to distinguish it from other local councils, and because this was the first council thus named, the counting started there. I don't see how that proves anything.

So says you. Now you're just trying to throw back something, but that was not the point.

Yes there is a point, which is that you rail against the Church's practices as unbiblical, but the correesponding practices of your own church as just as unbiblical as ours are (or aren't).

That issue is the true diversion, as you glossed over the point (repeated in bold) with that question and now reiterate as your whole premise that I am saying the spirit abandoned the church for 1500 years, which is not what I have said. It is not the Spirit who abandons, it is man who does what he wants, and follows the spirit selectively, and the people of that 1500 years of the Church was no less human than we today. THIS is the point, now don't forget that and keep throwing this "spirit abandoned the Church for 1500 years" straw man.

<sigh> I'll ask a third time. Can you prove, that on any issue whatsoever, ANY AT ALL, that your church is following the Spirit's guidance, whereas Orthodoxy is not?

If you cannot answer this simple question, we have to say you don't even have the seed of an argument, and ought to conceed here and now that Orthodoxy could be following the Spirit on every doctrinal issue.

One of the problems here, is that you keep phrasing these things in a way where I am doing something that I am not doing. I did not choose this canon because "it seemed good in my eyes" because Luther said so. When I first became a Christian, I didn't know much about Luther. I saw one canon, held by basically everyone around,

So you initially decided based purely on the tradition of your local cliche. Is this supposed to be a compelling argument?

and then later ran across some extra books the RCC used sometimes, , so why should (or even how could) I have considered that canon? And I read the Apocrypha, and a book of God's Word named after Baal [Bel] and a dragon? Come on! It was easy to believe that was not canonical.

And you continued to believe based on what was good in your own eyes. How is this helping your case again?

 

[orthodox]

And I read the Apocrypha, and a book of God's Word named after Baal [Bel] and a dragon? Come on! It was easy to believe that was not canonical.

BTW, in Orthodox bibles there is no book called Bel and the Dragon, even though we include the same material that in the West is sometimes referred to as Bel and the Dragon. So if all that put you off was the name, that's a pretty dumb reason.

 

[Eric B]

Yes there is a point, which is that you rail against the Church's practices as unbiblical, but the correesponding practices of your own church as just as unbiblical as ours are (or aren't).

<sigh> I'll ask a third time. Can you prove, that on any issue whatsoever, ANY AT ALL, that your church is following the Spirit's guidance, whereas Orthodoxy is not?

If you cannot answer this simple question, we have to say you don't even have the seed of an argument, and ought to conceed here and now that Orthodoxy could be following the Spirit on every doctrinal issue.

What is the point? So you can say "no, we were right you were wrong because we're the true Church and followed the spirit on every issue" anyway, just like you did with infant baptism and sola scriptura? Again, this is a diversionary tactic, as your line of reasoning renders any such discussion fruitless, for now. You've already admitted that the Church was not always right, and not all traditions were apostolic. That right there should show my point that they were human (just like us) and therefore no more guaranteed to have followed the Spirit in every area.

So you initially decided based purely on the tradition of your local cliche. Is this supposed to be a compelling argument?

And you continued to believe based on what was good in your own eyes. How is this helping your case again?

BTW, in Orthodox bibles there is no book called Bel and the Dragon, even though we include the same material that in the West is sometimes referred to as Bel and the Dragon. So if all that put you off was the name, that's a pretty dumb reason.

So it's not my local clique, or what's good in my own eyes, but it seems that your orthodox view is now closer to being the local clique. Once again, how was I supposed to even know about that in order to reject it in favor of a canon based on what was good in my eyes?

 

[orthodox]

What is the point? So you can say "no, we were right you were wrong because we're the true Church and followed the spirit on every issue" anyway, just like you did with infant baptism and sola scriptura? Again, this is a diversionary tactic, as your line of reasoning renders any such discussion fruitless, for now.

How is it fruitless? This is the crux of the issue and you won't cough up any evidence.

You've already admitted that the Church was not always right, and not all traditions were apostolic. That right there should show my point that they were human (just like us) and therefore no more guaranteed to have followed the Spirit in every area.

Huh? Because the tradition about the colour of the priest's shoes is not apostolic, so therefore all traditions are not apostolic? Or because someone, somewhere in the church once got something wrong, therefore we may have got the canon wrong?

This is just desperation.

So it's not my local clique, or what's good in my own eyes, but it seems that your orthodox view is now closer to being the local clique.

Is there something here that makes sense?

Once again, how was I supposed to even know about that in order to reject it in favor of a canon based on what was good in my eyes?

Huh?

 

[Eric B]

How is it fruitless? This is the crux of the issue and you won't cough up any evidence.

Huh? Because the tradition about the colour of the priest's shoes is not apostolic, so therefore all traditions are not apostolic? Or because someone, somewhere in the church once got something wrong, therefore we may have got the canon wrong?

This is just desperation.

Is there something here that makes sense?

Huh?

I didn't say "all traditions are wrong", or that doing some things wrong proves the canon is wrong, but it does prove that the men making up the Church were fallible, (as opposed to 100% following the spirit as you have been arguing) and THAT was the crux of the issue.

 

[orthodox]

I didn't say "all traditions are wrong", or that doing some things wrong proves the canon is wrong, but it does prove that the men making up the Church were fallible, (as opposed to 100% following the spirit as you have been arguing) and THAT was the crux of the issue.

A false dichotomy, because the issue is not the fallibility of individuals, the issue is the infallibility of Christ's body.

Again, if you dispute this, you have no canon.

 

[Eliyahu]

I've never come across a verse that defines Roman Catholics.

Roman Catholic performs what God prohibited as follows:

Deut 4:15-
15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,



Can the statues of Holy Mother Mary smell or hear or see anything ?

Deut 4: 26-28
26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. 27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you. 28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.


Isn't that religion performing Idolatry a pagan heresy?

 

[Eric B]

A false dichotomy, because the issue is not the fallibility of individuals, the issue is the infallibility of Christ's body.

Again, if you dispute this, you have no canon.

And Christ's body is made up of individuals, and groups of individuals. That's why the truth of Christ is not embodied in one group.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Roman Catholic performs what God prohibited as follows:

Deut 4:15-
15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,



Can the statues of Holy Mother Mary smell or hear or see anything ?

Deut 4: 26-28
26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. 27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you. 28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.


Isn't that religion performing Idolatry a pagan heresy?

"And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold..." (graven images of creatures of heaven)--Exodus 25:18, see also Exodus 26:1 and Ezekiel 41:25.

AND see 1 Kings 7:25-29, and 6:23-32. PLUS Numbers 21:8-9, and of course, Ezekiel 4:1. Those are places where God commanded the use of graven images of creatures of the earth.

 

[orthodox]

Roman Catholic performs what God prohibited as follows:

Deut 4:15-
15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,


Isn't that religion performing Idolatry a pagan heresy?

Exodus 25:18 "You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat.

 

[orthodox]

And Christ's body is made up of individuals, and groups of individuals. That's why the truth of Christ is not embodied in one group.

Strange after exchanging all these words it still hasn't sunk into you that we agree that the truth isn't in one group.

That doesn't mean it is in every group.

And _still_ you have no canon and no authority from which to get a canon.

 

[Eric B]

You ealier criticized "lowest common denominator" in determining the canon, but you used the same criteria in other areas, calling it "consensus". There are only 66 books there is a universal consensus on now, and the vast swaths that hold only the 66 are not the same as the Marcionites, or those who rejected Revelation, unless you believe Christ allowed a false cultic movement to co-opt a large chunk of Christianity in the world. (Which those other sects never did)

What hasn't sunk in to you is that even though you keep denying "one group", in practice, you ultimately ARE arguing for one particular church institution (Constantinople); however many subgroups it may have under it.

 

[orthodox]

You ealier criticized "lowest common denominator" in determining the canon, but you used the same criteria in other areas, calling it "consensus". There are only 66 books there is a universal consensus on now, and the vast swaths that hold only the 66 are not the same as the Marcionites, or those who rejected Revelation, unless you believe Christ allowed a false cultic movement to co-opt a large chunk of Christianity in the world. (Which those other sects never did)

We certainly don't assume that cultic sub-groups can't be large. The biggest is the RCC, and that is certainly big.

Again, you talk about what there is consensus on "now", but for us the truth doesn't change. Your attempt to subtract from the canon is no more credible than the Mormon's attempt to add to it. And the consensus that counts is that of people IN the Church. What people do out of the Church is of no consequence in defining the truth.

You want to be considered in the Church even though you are heretical by historical standards, adn the standards of those who settled the canon. Well, if we let you in, we have to let Mormons too.

What hasn't sunk in to you is that even though you keep denying "one group", in practice, you ultimately ARE arguing for one particular church institution (Constantinople); however many subgroups it may have under it.

The highest office in the Orthodox Church is that of Patriarch, of which there are five, and there are other autonomous churches that aren't even under one of those five. Constantinople is not above the others, he only has a postition of honour to help try and resolve disputes should other parties ask, and things like that. It's not about Constantinople. We don't have a pope situated further East.

 

[Eric B]

We certainly don't assume that cultic sub-groups can't be large. The biggest is the RCC, and that is certainly big.

Again, you talk about what there is consensus on "now", but for us the truth doesn't change. Your attempt to subtract from the canon is no more credible than the Mormon's attempt to add to it. And the consensus that counts is that of people IN the Church. What people do out of the Church is of no consequence in defining the truth.

You want to be considered in the Church even though you are heretical by historical standards, adn the standards of those who settled the canon. Well, if we let you in, we have to let Mormons too.

Then I guess the gates of hell did largely prevail, for cultic movements to capture most of the Christian world. What a turnaround! I thought that was what you criticized the "underground church" concept for! But all of us outside the EOC are all the same as the Mormons (who teach three gods, with the Father being born on another planet), and you have to be lucky enough to be around an EOC to have Christ. If I weren't in NYC, I may have never heard of it.

Your whole argument is summed up in saying we're not in the true Church because only your Church is "the one founded by Christ"; then when challenged on making the church a group, you say the true Church is not a particular group, institution or hierarchy, but rather a body of people holding "apostolic traditions" defined as "consensus of dogmatic truth", yet your only proof that your traditions are that consensus is that your church "always held them" (and this "historical" standard only judged from statements of some ECF's, that are at best ambiguous, beginning in the century following the NT, and of course later leaders who further developed/expounded the doctrines).
That is completely cyclical!

The highest office in the Orthodox Church is that of Patriarch, of which there are five, and there are other autonomous churches that aren't even under one of those five. Constantinople is not above the others, he only has a postition of honour to help try and resolve disputes should other parties ask, and things like that. It's not about Constantinople. We don't have a pope situated further East.

I'm aware of that, but still, Constantinople is the focal point in the EOC (hence the "position of honor" you mentioned), and churches held as in the faith by the EOC are said to be "in communion with Constantinople". That's all I meant by that statement.