Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
orthodox said:You said you respect the saints and I showed you that was a synonym for veneration.
I don't do that, because otherwise I may bow down to the enemies as you do.Since you pretend not to engage in Orthodox veneration, how are you in any position to speak on the topic? Become Orthodox and then get back to me.
You are not Orthodox so don't lecture us on what theotokos signifies. Just because you misunderstand the term, don't project that onto us.
What do you care about tri-unity since you deny the church that defined Tri-unity?
You cannot understand because you are obssessed by Idolatry and goddess worshipAgain, just because you can't understand, don't project it onto us.
orthodox said:What do you mean "entered her"? The word Mother means that a person physically gave birth to someone, which is even clearer in the Greek - tokos - bearer. It has nothing to do with whether they were pre-existent or not.
The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.
If that was the apostolic tradition, yes.
Does your church have a cross on it, or in the church buletins, or the bibles, or on the walls?
Hallelujah, God was incarnate.
Eric B said:The only reason we went back to "square one" is because of how corrupt the Church had gotten, and the total chaos we saw at times. Eliyahu's reference is a great example of what I was talking about, and it was not just the West, being long before the split. We see the politics and power mongering that was involved. That is why we do not just trust the "historical Church". Once again, the spirit was there, but people just did not listen to Him in many areas.
But they are supposed to follow authority, aren't they? Those people could have argued that point, as it is scriptural too.
Who said I doubt him? What I doubt is the interpretation you put on him to suggest he taught full blown 4th or 10th century EOC doctrine from the rather ambiguous references taken from him.
Even then, there was still no guarantee that he got that from John.
Other followers of John were Quartodeciman, which was more likely something he would have practiced, but Ignatius and the others of his period did not advocate Jewish practices.
You know what I men. the Roman Church. The whole patriarchate that broke away.
They are still in "the Church", just not in a local congregation, (which they should be). To be not in the Church is to not be in Christ.
Once again, that is men and their own issues. Taking a bunch of those same men, putting them in offices in one ecclesisstical structure where they get to dictate those judgments as "apostolic tradition" only creates more problems, as we see in Elyahu's quotes..
Eliyahu said:ignoring the fact that He was God and the Creator of Mary.
The Nestorian controversy he quoted one or two pages ago.orthodox said:What corruption in the Orthodox Church do you reference? I'm not sure what Eliyahu reference you mean.
The church was splitting along factional lines. Presumably they should have got together and sorted out their differences. This is what the Church did for a thousand years. Now we have "I follow the Baptists" and "I follow the Presbyterians" etc etc.
I do not agree with the modern division. That once again is the sin of man. Still, for one to rise up out of that and claim "we are the true group, the only resolution is you all follow us" is worse than the largely "agreeing to disagree" on some issues most of the other groups engage in.So everyone makes their own judgment and Christendom spilits into a dozen factions with no possibility of resolution? The "no image" faction, the "images but not in church" faction, the "images but not of Christ" faction, the "images but not of the saints" faction, the "images but no veneration" faction and the Orthodox faction? This is your solution, no solution?
I don't remember doubting his teaching on the bishopric. What I said is that if you take that to prove your Church's polity, Roome can just as well.No, you doubted that his teaching about the bishopric was apostolic. When I showed you that there was no basis for your inference you backed off, now you're onto a new set of complaints.
You didn't refute anything. For one thing, Ignatius is only one person, and the ECF's cover a couple more centuries after him. So both arguments hold. This one person knowing an aged apostle doesn't guarantee that everything he taught he bgot from that apostle, and he did not unambiguously state later church doctrine, and those later fathers who did are quite a jump from the apostles, especially when we see how things can change from one person to the next.Ahhh. First you complain that there is some big jump to the apostles. When you're refuted on that you jump to your next defence that even those learning directly from the apostles couldn't get it right.
There is simply no limit to how far you will go to defend YOUR traditions is there?
And here you swing from "the traditions were passed down from the apostles" to an admission that they were really decided by the later leaders, (even when it contradicted the most evident apostolic practice!)Back to your old calendar chestnut. For all I know John didn't have the full canon either because is wasn't assembled yet. But Church didn't suddenly lose the Spirit when the apostles died. It continued to follow the biblical model to resolve disagreements if and when they arise. Not even John is above the Church, he is still a member of the body.
you said anyone leaving the Church was never apart of the Church. Yet a whole patriarchate left. I don't see why that is any different from an individual.I have no knowledge that any individual person ever broke away, that is the point.
The type of person you describe is still in the called out assembly, just not physically meeting with it, which of course is disobedient. That is not the same as being not in the Body at all.The very word Church means those called out in assembly to woship God. If you want to create some new definition of "church", fine go ahead. All I'm saying is they are not in the Church according to the traditional understanding of that term. Sometimes arguments are just about definition.
Have to go, will get back on this oneBTW, what is your position, are the Holy Icons acceptable?
Eric B said:The Nestorian controversy he quoted one or two pages ago.
I do not agree with the modern division. That once again is the sin of man. Still, for one to rise up out of that and claim "we are the true group, the only resolution is you all follow us" is worse than the largely "agreeing to disagree" on some issues most of the other groups engage in.
I don't remember doubting his teaching on the bishopric. What I said is that if you take that to prove your Church's polity, Roome can just as well.
You didn't refute anything. For one thing, Ignatius is only one person,
and the ECF's cover a couple more centuries after him.
And here you swing from "the traditions were passed down from the apostles" to an admission that they were really decided by the later leaders, (even when it contradicted the most evident apostolic practice!)
you said anyone leaving the Church was never apart of the Church. Yet a whole patriarchate left. I don't see why that is any different from an individual.
The type of person you describe is still in the called out assembly, just not physically meeting with it, which of course is disobedient. That is not the same as being not in the Body at all.
Have to go, will get back on this one
orthodox said:If you had ever cared to attend the divine liturgy of the Holy Orthodox Church, you might have heard it said that "Mary had within her womb her own creator".
Just because you are ignorant of what we teach, doesn't mean we are.
I notice you have ignored 1 Ti 3:16 which says that God was manifest in the flesh. By you argument it is heretical because only the Son was incarnate, not the Trinity. My response is "go argue with Paul".
Eliyahu said:So, you are now claiming Mary is Mother of God the Father !
That's the typical logic of goddess worshippers !
The stuff with Cyril, the jealousy over others' position, misconstruing Nestorius' position, and the emperor so involved in Church affairs, which is not in itself necesarily corruption, but it shows the secular political nature of the Church by then.orthodox said:And among all that waffle where is the supposed corruption?
The groups I referred to as agreeing to disagree generally aren't accusing each other of idolatry.How can you agree to disagree on idolatry?
I didn't deny he said that. Still, if you have never heard of that used as an argument for the Papacy, I don't know where you've been. The pope is a bishop who rules over all the other offices, and they believe it goes back to Peter.You keep saying this but it is baloney and you know it. Bishops ruling over elders is mentioned. Popes are not mentioned. I've never heard a RC claiming Ignatius proved the papacy either.
Ignatius wasn't preaching a theology, he was stating a fact - Antioch, Smyrna, Trois and Phillipi had single ruling bishops. Thus he wasn't speaking as one person, he was stating the position of all these cities.
You still assert this with no real proof, as if just slapping on the name "orthodox" is proof in itself.Unfortunately for you, they are orthodox no matter what century you pick, you can just try and insert more doubt as time rolls on.
And how do you determine that the calendar was not dogma? Those favoring Easter Sunday certainly seemed to be dogmatic about it, and all such Jewish sabbath practices were later condemned in the councils. (Another example of the corruption I was talking about, above) Once again, it is a cycle; of using "dogma" to define traditionYes, some things were decided by later leaders, but the calendar is not a matter of dogma, it is a discipline.
And that's what I was trying to say. But you are the one who spoke of people leaving and then having never really been in the Church to begin with. Whether you call a patriarchate an abstraction or not, it is still a whole section of the Church, and all the individuals in it, who have broken communion with the East.A patriarchate is an abstraction. It doesn't mean God let anybody leave the Church.
The issue is not the physical meeting. There are hermits and monks and others who don't always physically meet. But they are spiritually in the Church because they are on communion with the Church.
Was the bowing of the head or at the waist--or were they full prostrations? It makes a difference. Just wondering if the Greek is clear.Eric B said:The stuff with Cyril, the jealousy over others' position, misconstruing Nestorius' position, and the emperor so involved in Church affairs, which is not in itself necesarily corruption, but it shows the secular political nature of the Church by then.
And your argument is so into history, why when someone gives you history is it "waffle"?
The groups I referred to as agreeing to disagree generally aren't accusing each other of idolatry.
I didn't deny he said that. Still, if you have never heard of that used as an argument for the Papacy, I don't know where you've been. The pope is a bishop who rules over all the other offices, and they believe it goes back to Peter.
You still assert this with no real proof, as if just slapping on the name "orthodox" is proof in itself.
And how do you determine that the calendar was not dogma? Those favoring Easter Sunday certainly seemed to be dogmatic about it, and all such Jewish sabbath practices were later condemned in the councils. (Another example of the corruption I was talking about, above) Once again, it is a cycle; of using "dogma" to define tradition
Yet tradition defines dogma!
And that's what I was trying to say. But you are the one who spoke of people leaving and then having never really been in the Church to begin with. Whether you call a patriarchate an abstraction or not, it is still a whole section of the Church, and all the individuals in it, who have broken communion with the East.
As for the icons, you keep using as an excuse 1)that figures were used in the OT Temple and 2)we have pictures of loved ones. But a figure commanded directly by God is different from a picture we draw, and nobody even knows what Mary and the others look like (unless you belive there was a graphic/visual 'tradition' passed down as well). So what is the point of having some fictional cartoon, basically, and caling it a saint, and then praying to it? In all of this, we forget the scripture where John twice bowed to the angel speaking to him and was told "do not do that...worship God!" According to you, the angel should have accepted the "reverence", or whatver. And a picture of a loved one is not for religious veneration, so I do not see how that even compares.
Eric B said:The stuff with Cyril, the jealousy over others' position, misconstruing Nestorius' position, and the emperor so involved in Church affairs, which is not in itself necesarily corruption, but it shows the secular political nature of the Church by then.
The groups I referred to as agreeing to disagree generally aren't accusing each other of idolatry.
I didn't deny he said that. Still, if you have never heard of that used as an argument for the Papacy, I don't know where you've been. The pope is a bishop who rules over all the other offices, and they believe it goes back to Peter.
You still assert this with no real proof, as if just slapping on the name "orthodox" is proof in itself.
And how do you determine that the calendar was not dogma? Those favoring Easter Sunday certainly seemed to be dogmatic about it, and all such Jewish sabbath practices were later condemned in the councils. (Another example of the corruption I was talking about, above) Once again, it is a cycle; of using "dogma" to define tradition. Yet tradition defines dogma!
And that's what I was trying to say. But you are the one who spoke of people leaving and then having never really been in the Church to begin with. Whether you call a patriarchate an abstraction or not, it is still a whole section of the Church, and all the individuals in it, who have broken communion with the East.
As for the icons, you keep using as an excuse 1)that figures were used in the OT Temple and 2)we have pictures of loved ones. But a figure commanded directly by God is different from a picture we draw, and nobody even knows what Mary and the others look like (unless you belive there was a graphic/visual 'tradition' passed down as well). So what is the point of having some fictional cartoon, basically, and caling it a saint, and then praying to it? In all of this, we forget the scripture where John twice bowed to the angel speaking to him and was told "do not do that...worship God!" According to you, the angel should have accepted the "reverence", or whatver. And a picture of a loved one is not for religious veneration, so I do not see how that even compares.
Pastor Larry said:The whole premise of the thread is incorrect. No church defined the Bible. God defined the Bible through inspiration. Historically orthodox Christians merely recognized what God had already inspired.
orthodox said:I see the KJVO debate rages on here.
As an Orthodox Christian, I have to ask the question to KJVOs. Since my church proclaimed and declared the NT canon that you now accept... if there's any proclaiming to be done about an authoritative version of the bible, for consistency's sake, aren't you going to have to wait until my church declares that too?
It was more than just one bishop, but seemed to be the general atmosphere of Church leadership. And why is it "disputed"?orthodox said:Assuming any of this was true, which seems disputed, it hardly indicates a general corruption of the Church if some bishop did something wrong or whatever. My goodness, if that is a general corruption of the church, what do we say about protestants with Jimmy Swaggart etc?
Since Constantinople held a higher position than Antioch or Alexandria, the bishops of both competed for the honor of being the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Since the Antiochenes were more successful than the Alexandrines in occupying the Patriarchate, the latter regarded both Antioch and Constantinople somewhat as enemies.
There was a history of animosity between the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Constantinople.
John Chrysostom, a presbyter in Constantinople, became Patriarch in 398; he was a fearless and dedicated reformer, as well as a former pupil of Diodore of Tarsus (d. 394) and fellow student with Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428).
Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, an ambitious prelate, was nominated to be John's consecrator.
Theophilus lived as a great magnate, while John was an ascetic whose main concern was social justice and charity to the poor.
John's campaign to evangelize the city resulted in opposition from clergy and others who resented his pure life and uncompromising zeal.
His greatest opponent was Theophilus, who was jealous of the popularity of his rival and of the priority of honour enjoyed by Constantinople.
Theophilus assembled a synod of bishops (most from Egypt) in Constantinople in 403 and summoned John before them, but he did not appear, so they condemned him in his absence on various false charges.
John protested his innocence, but surrendered to the Imperial bodyguard and left Constantinople
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (412-444) and the nephew of Theophilus, opposed Nestorius (he was a more able politician and theologian).
His zeal for Orthodoxy was not accompanied by charity to his rivals and from the first his rule was marked by the acts of violence of his fanatical followers.
Cyril was driven by the ambition to assert Alexandria's primacy over Antioch and Constantinople.
Cyril maintained that in Christ the divine and the human nature were both complete and that the latter included the rational element; the unity in Christ was through the Logos who became incarnate in Christ and took on the general characteristics of man.
Cyril saw Christ's humanity as that of humanity in general, not that of an individual man; salvation was accomplished by the personal Logos who assumed impersonal human nature, thus uniting it with the divine nature.
Cyril championed the use of Theotokos and accused Nestorius of teaching that Christ had been a "mere man."
Cyril's critics had been complaining of him to Emperor Theodosius II and to Nestorius, so Cyril was eager to shift attention away from himself and onto Nestorius.
Cyril gained the support of the Western and Eastern Roman Emperors and the Pope.
We were talking about the "divided" protestantism apart fromthe EOC.Most of them aren't, but with Orthodoxy they are!!! What are you going to do about that??
It doesn;t have to say right there "ruling over all bishops". It starts there, and is projected to that, and the argument is how later teachins are projected into the early fathers.Yes but none of that is in Ignatius.. There is no mention of a bishop ruling all the other offices or a pope or Peter etc. There is no argument here and you're trying to create one where none exists.
You create the negative by assumng them into a category called "orthodox" to begin with. Was the term "orthodox" ever even used before the split with Rome?One would think if they weren't Orthodox some protestant would have proved it by now. I can't prove a negative.
The apostolicity of the writings can be examined and tested. More than a claim of "we have always done this".It's the same as with the canon. How do you know the canon is dogma? How do you know the canon is apostolic? How do you know the Church didn't get it wrong? The objections are the same, and the response is the same.
Rome began shifting the dogmas even before the split (filioque, papacy, etc).. That's what led to the splitA break in communion doesn't necessarily put any side out of the Church. It is a break in communion plus a major shift in dogma. In the case of the Roman schism, the break in communion allowed the West easier ability to go off unfettered making new dogma, but it doesn't mean that anybody in the West in say 1054 immediately changed their beliefs. Possibly the next generation for example may have been more and more off track.
You don't know what "religious veneration" is? Especially since this seems to be among the "dogma" we are criticized for not following. A group of friends who know each other taking pictures is not the same thing as a religious picture of Christ or a saint that is the object of religious worship. And it's not just if you worshipo it as a "false god". The golden calf was supposed to be the true God, but He didn't authorize it, and was angry at the people. And since this is a misunderstanding and you think there is scriptural warrant for it, I myself do not condemn the EOC as an illegitimate church for it.Well hang on now, I didn't ask you if you like icons, I asked if they were acceptable and if you can commune with Christians that use them. I'll address your concerns, but that's the real question I want you to answer. Since you say Orthodoxy is a legitmate Church, I think you really have to say it is acceptable don't you?
As for your comments. the OT iconsgraphy at least indicates that the Jews had a nuanced understanding of images. It wasn't just "images = bad". It was only images worshipped as a false god.
This is a cultural thing. Imagine for a second that an important respected person visited your church. I reckon what would happen is you'd gather together for a group photo, then you'd have a meal, and people would go around snapping photos. The next week you'd come and find the photos pinned up on the notice board. And nobody would make a murmur about idolatry.
Well they didn't have cameras back then, but the thinking was the same and the culture was the same, both Jew and Christian. And their thinking was nuanced enough to distinguish between unlawful images of false Gods, and normal everyday images, and images used for other legitimate purposes.
As for not knowing what Mary looked like, icons are very deliberately non-realistic. Perspective is reversed, and things are drawn to make a theological statement.
Concerning bowing, Orthodox bow to each other, living or dead. The priest bows to the congregation, the congregation bows to the priest. We're not doing anything to the dead that we wouldn't do to the living. It's just a cultural thing again. Do you object to the Japanese culture of bowing when you meet someone?
As for a picture of a loved one not being for "religious veneration", what is religious veneration? If loved ones are not venerated "religiously", then neither are the saints. You're going to have to clarify what you mean.
Eric B said:It was more than just one bishop, but seemed to be the general atmosphere of Church leadership. And why is it "disputed"?
We were talking about the "divided" protestantism apart fromthe EOC.
It doesn;t have to say right there "ruling over all bishops". It starts there, and is projected to that, and the argument is how later teachins are projected into the early fathers.
You create the negative by assumng them into a category called "orthodox" to begin with. Was the term "orthodox" ever even used before the split with Rome?
The apostolicity of the writings can be examined and tested. More than a claim of "we have always done this".
Rome began shifting the dogmas even before the split (filioque, papacy, etc).. That's what led to the split
You don't know what "religious veneration" is? Especially since this seems to be among the "dogma" we are criticized for not following.
A group of friends who know each other taking pictures is not the same thing as a religious picture of Christ or a saint that is the object of religious worship.
And it's not just if you worshipo it as a "false god". The golden calf was supposed to be the true God, but He didn't authorize it, and was angry at the people.
And since this is a misunderstanding and you think there is scriptural warrant for it, I myself do not condemn the EOC as an illegitimate church for it.
That was more than just two independant leaders, which Swaggart and Hinn are, with their own ministries. There seemed to be many such tumultuous periods, all in this single organization you think is the preserver of Christian unity and definition of apostolic sucession.orthodox said:Somebody has taken a few tumultuous events and projected it into begin a "general atmosphere". That's a bit like me discussing Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn and saying there is a general atmosphere of corruption in American protestantism.
That's just what I mean. We may see some things like that differently, but most of us still acknowledge each other as being in Christ.So dividing from the EOC is ok?
And yet I've com across protestants who condemned The Passion of the Christ because it depicts God, and yet most protestant churches seemed to be on board with that one.
Today I dropped in on a baptist church because I know someone who goes there, and someone had put up on all the walls all these pictures depicting Christ in his ministry, they seemed to have been ripped out of some calendar, and obviously nobody had objected.
And yet obviously there are people in this thread who would object strongly. So how undivided are you really?
Come off it now; just by saying the fathers were "orthodox" and essentially no different than 11th century Eastern Church, you are projecting onto them.Have I ever projected anything onto any given church father? No I havn't. When I do, then you can whine about it.
I don't know all the details about that. But historians and archaeologists have been able to determine that certain books are genuine, while others are not. The epistle of Barnabas, for instance, was once believed to be from Barnabas of the NT, but it was determined it was really from a second century Alexandrian. Most of the other "gospels", "acts", epistles", and "apocalypses" were determined to be from the Gnostics.How are you going to test the aposticity of the NT writings?
Regardless, of how long it took, Rome did break off, and now you consider it not in the true Church. You earlier even called it a cult. And the Protestants broke of, and together as "Western Christianity", they make up a vast majority of Christendom, so if you say Christ is only in the Eastern Church, (which many people don't even know much about), then it is a similar scenario as the underground Church theory, where the truth is largely lost to most of the Christian world.Sure, but it happened over time. There isn't anybody in particular who can said to have been orthodox and then ceased to be orthodox.
Regardless, the true God isn't a cow, and neither is he the Caucasian people draw and call Jesus. The Israelites said that it "only represented" God (more so that it was God). Just like the represenations that God had authorized for the Temple. The difference was the authorization, and intention.It's not really a problem because you don't venerate icons. There are orthodox people brought up in the protestant west who can't bring themselves to venerate icons. It is ok. However it is a problem if you start telling orthodox people that they ought not do it.
I don't know where you draw the line between religious and non-religious. If you have a Christian friend that you think very highly of because of their holy life and selfless attitude, is that religious veneration? I don't know where you draw a line between religious and non-religious. For orthodox our whole life is religious... or non-religious, depending on your point of view.
The true god was a cow??? Puhlease. Firstly, the true God isn't a cow. Secondly, nobody told them the true God was a cow. But we know the true God has been made a man. That's why this baptist church I went to today has pictures of Christ on the walls and it didn't occur to anybody that they were breaking the 2nd commandment.
Well hand on now. 30 seconds ago you were trying to palm off the story that the poor misguided Israelites thought the true God was a cow. But none of those people entered the promised land. Make up your mind, it is comparable or not?
No it's not. You are totally misguided.Dictionaries don't decide what words mean, but they do define words, for those people who want to know. It's the same with the Church.