An important detail concerning Sunday: in the NT the Lord's Day became the Day of His Resurrection. This new day has taken precedence over Saturday because Our Lord Jesus Christ is also the Lord of the Sabbath.
Psa 118:24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117817#msg117817 date=1281466088]It would seem that you are a Seventh Day Adventist of some sort, can you identify which group you do belong to.My statement was to acknowledge that though I identify no valid position for first (as opposed to seventh) day rest in the RCC, I am not SDA, as many have presumed. There are a number of other differences between I and they which I prefer not to discuss at this time.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117817#msg117817 date=1281466088]You are doing what our previous friend wants to do. Reading the Bible according to your own interpretation.And are you to say that it is without the Holy Spirit guiding me then that I read scripture? Yet you don't see me read scripture nor can you fully know the movements of the Holy Spirit.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117817#msg117817 date=1281466088]You speak of wolves, but no-where are we taught that the Church would be lost. This is the very opposite of what is taught in the Bible. You may read that into the Bible, but again, on what authority do you read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means?In fact, I never said I read that, only that they wrote "at least one interpretation." My purpose in including that was to demonstrate that a method of identifying validity seems necessary. After all, if you cannot detect my spirit, then you clearly cannot know if I am one myself.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117817#msg117817 date=1281466088]How do we know that what we are taught is true? It is, in one regard at least, because it is what has always been taught from the Apostolic times and in all places. The witness is clear that there was a universality of belief in all of these things from the beginning, and long before there was a New Testament. If you reject the early Church has having fallen into error, how can you then rest on the Bible which the early Church produced and canonised?Though you reversed my question (changing the essence of it slightly), I'll accept this. You really should answer the questions people ask though, and not make up your own. It's easy to create straw men that way. I understand that your position is that one must first accept the history of your church in order to verify that it is true. May I presume then that the position that "the early Church produced" the scripture is a part of your history (which I have not as of yet accepted)? If so, then it's a loaded question (that is, the question begging logical fallacy).
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117817#msg117817 date=1281466088]We are unable to discuss one opinion against another, that is not how Orthodoxy works. We have already received the true light, and found the true faith, and worship the Holy Trinity with a true worship. Anything else is something less.I actually didn't have the intent to discuss any of these with you, though I'm always up for an honest discussion. I really only intended to find out how your church distinguishes from valid and invalid doctrine. Most of the other stuff I included because of this prior statement:
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117754#msg117754 date=1281432096]If you are going to make general criticisms of the Orthodox Church it is fair that we know where youy are coming from.Not that I intended to make criticisms, but to many churches even positing the question of how one determines what doctrine is true and what is not can be seen as criticism, and that what I said might be taken as such.
Thank you for answering my questions and addressing my post, Peter Farrington. I pray that the Father in Heaven blesses you, and all here.
And GBU, I appreciate the link to the article. I'd be interested in having a look.
I am both. The diocese I belong to is the British Orthodox Church, and it is a diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. There is a French Orthodox Church which is also a diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. I expect that as God wills there will be other dioceses which are naturally part of the cultures of different places in the world but are united in the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate.
God bless you Father Peter and bless your ministry and all the British Orthodox Church.
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Canon Scripture and genuine Church Tradition are considered like two sides of the SAME gold coin, i.e. they are both edifying as Tradition teaches practical faith and explains Scripture. The Holy Spirit constantly support and protect the Church. The Church Tradition exists because of the Holy Spirit's action in the Church. We use 'Holy' for both, as we say the 'Holy Scripture' and also say the 'Holy Tradition'.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117770#msg117770 date=1281444954] Lol. This is what I mean. You take words out of context and apply them to whatever you want. Where does the Bible teach us about making the sign of the cross, or how to make the prophora, or what prayers to pray over the eucharistic elements etc etc.
You are twisting one idea - has God completed the Scripture - with he meaning - is everything about the christian life only and entirely found in the bible.
You are ignoring the word of scripture - keep the tradition.
You cannot explain what the bible teaches because you are not found within the life of the Church in which the Holy Spirit produced the Bible.
What were the Christians doing before the New Testament was written? Were they just sitting there waiting for Revelation to be written so the Bible would be 'complete' or did they not even think in such terms - how could they. They lived the life of the Holy Spirit, taught by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and then their appointed bishops, just as Orthodox have always done. The Bible is part of the life of the Church, the Church exists even before a single book of the New Testament is written.
Father Peter
You really lack of understanding can't you understand the line "none of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate" the problem is that you don't find it in the bible you find some of your doctrines in the teachings of men which are in vain (mark 7:7)..I believe that some of your teachings are just created by men that by Jesus Christ..you don't have any proof that Jesus really taught it like the sign of the cross..you have proof? then what verse in the bible can I find that verse? in fact when He prayed to God in the garden of gethsemane did He make the sign of the cross?? You see you are obeying some of the teachings of men..I think your just making your own teachings..the Bible is complete you just don't find it..
When was the Bible compiled in the form we have it? Was it year 1,2,3,4,...,10,....21,...,36,...,48,...,52,...100,...,...? The Books were carried in oral tradition before they were transcribed fully.
I believe JohnS_2000 quotation from the Gospel of St. John is quite explicit: John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
It is one of my favorite verses.
Is it part of the Bible you use?
When the Bible in the Four Gospels states clearly: "This is my Body...This is my Blood..." Our Church believes Our Lord. It is so obvious. It is stated clearly without any ambiguity. Yet, those that carry your frame of thought go on and on about it being figurative. So you can be figurative, when direct contraction from the Master's own words, but you want to be explicit when quoting other verses that are taken out of context.
I believe Fr. Peter made himself quite clear in being able to equate the consistency of the Word of God in the Life of the Church and in Its Declaration of Dogma and Doctrine with the fullness of the Holy Scriptures. You cannot pick and choose when you want to take things literally. The Declaration of the Sacrament (Mystery) of the Holy Eucharist is by Our Master's very mouth. To deny this four times repeated Declaration is tantamount to calling Our Lord a liar [God forbid].
Your "logic" is inconsistent in its application, and hence cannot be logical.
Fr. Peter is a very special person because he has journeyed and followed the narrow road to get to this point in his life. He is devout to his [our] Master. He is at this point because he put the Word of God before his own word and before any other person's opinion. God's Word [Christ, Who is the Second Person of the Trinity] is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and in the Teachings of His [Christ's] Bride--the Holy Orthodox Church. There is no one that will know the Bridegroom [Christ] as well as His Own Bride [the Church].
If the Sign of the Cross is so abominable, then why is it that Protestant Churches have Crosses mounted also?
The making of the Sign of the Cross is a reminder of so many things from the Bible, including the declaration, "Go therefore and baptize ye them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." In terms of sentence structure, there is an inferred equality with the Three Persons mentioned. When you make the Sign of the Cross you are repeating the same thing that Our Lord said Himself.
When the Gospel of St. John speaks of the Holy Spirit and in the oration of the Lord, it is stated: "...the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He [the Holy Spirit] shall teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things I have said unto you..." I believe "He" as a pronoun is explicit for a person and not a "force".
By the way the codification and compilation of the Holy Bible happened in Egypt and then transferred to the rest of the world under the aegis and leadership of the Church of Alexandria. I am curious, the "Bible" that you use, where does it come from? Who wrote it? Who compiled it? Who translated it?
If you do some research, and open your heart, you will find that the Holy Spirit gave you a gift through the people of Egypt and the Orthodox Church in Egypt.
The making of the Sign of the Cross is a reminder of so many things from the Bible, including the declaration, "Go therefore and baptize ye them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." In terms of sentence structure, there is an inferred equality with the Three Persons mentioned. When you make the Sign of the Cross you are repeating the same thing that Our Lord said Himself.
So your notion to that verse is to perform the sign of the cross..that's what I'm talking about..your trying to insist that Jesus really taught us the sign of the cross with that verse..it's very sad to hear that your trying to state that I'm lacking logic in the studying the bible where in fact it is you who lack understanding..why did I say so?? Its very explicit to understand that the verse you stated is a commandment to the disciples that they should baptize the people with the Name of the father, the son and the holy spirit..is there sign of the cross in this statement?? I believe that the logic here is very clear..even an elementary student can understand this verse very clear..you just don't admit it that Jesus did not really taught us to do such thing..you don't have any proof..your basis is only a sign or an act of doing it..but Jesus did not really taught it...try to read the whole bible if you can see sign of the cross,,if you can find then I'll believe in you..don't add or make your own teachings cause its against in the bible..that's why I believe that the bible is complete the problem only is many people in this world just want to make their own understanding with their selves and sometimes believe on the teachings of men..you have no proof to that Jesus did really make the sign of the cross..
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you". Deuteronomy 4:2
[quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117856#msg117856 date=1281490203] You really lack of understanding can't you understand the line "none of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate"
But the Bible was not complete when that that was written. How can you use that argument when an entire half of the Bible was not written until after?
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=9549.msg117867#msg117867 date=1281500096] [quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117856#msg117856 date=1281490203] You really lack of understanding can't you understand the line "none of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate"
But the Bible was not complete when that that was written. How can you use that argument when an entire half of the Bible was not written until after?
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
This sign of the Son of man IS the Cross, it is the descriptive emblem of His Passion. Like the shadow of the brass serpent that God commanded Moses to make and raise, that spared and healed from the deadly poisonous bites, so was the Son of man raised on the Cross to reclaim eternal life for humanity.
I think a recently formed church without an Apostolic root cannot easily admit the importance of Christian Tradition because in fact it would threaten her authority within her congregation. If she survives, after many centuries she will have then to admit she has some sort of tradition too, but its very own - though a separate and non Apostolic tradition.
With the Grace of God, the Orthodox Apostolic Church is alive despite too many fights against her. She will continue to expand and grow under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Consider this as a system of holy continual education, aiming for the continual growth of the Church, its expansion and its maintenance.
HH Pope Shenouda III explained that a Church without Tradition lacks the wealth of Christian pearls gained throughout many centuries of correct faithful worship, that started from the day when God visibly poured His Holy Spirit on the Apostles, when they started to preach the Gospel to all nations.
Not all Traditions are made by God I think most of these are just made by men. It is good to continue the tradition if it is made by God..You see the point here is that we should follow God's doctrines written by the bible and not just by some teachings of men. Yes Jesus died in the cross but no apostle in Christ wrote that Christ told us to perform that sign..nor paul or peter..you see they are the first century Christians and they wrote all what they have seen and heard that is related to our salvation and teachings of Christ. If you are really an apostolic church with an apostolic tradition you must follow what is really written by the apostles..just admit it that no sign of the cross was taught by Christ..it is just made by men who lacks understanding about the scriptures,,follow the teachings of Christ not by men or your worship will be n vain..try to think of it..
Your understanding of the term "spiritual tradition" is flawed. The term "spiritual tradition" is a theological term. OK? In theology, you'll learn that not everything was written down. Teachings were passed on orally. Not everything is written down in the scriptures. The footnotes are not there! The 1st hand explanation of those who lived with Christ are not there.
As I mentioned previously, we can see this in the example of Joseph who said "How can I commit this sin before the Lord". Who told him it was a sin? The 10 Commandments came AFTER him, by centuries.
You still did not answer this!
Let's take another example -
Saint John's gospel which says: "Receive unto you the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained".
This verse, to us, is the onset of the sacrament of confession. How do we know that ? How did we interpret it that way? Because of the apostolic life we inherited since the early Church. The verbal footnotes we received expressed to us in the writings, the life and the Spirit of the Early Church.
You do not interpret this as meaning the start of a sacrament of confession. You agree? So with what justification, or validity do you have when you interpret that verse?? How do you know how you interpret it is correct?? How?
Im not saying you need to be part of the Orthodox Church to have the right understanding, nor ours, but I am saying that you are reading a book without any validity from its authors. Therefore, you are misjudging a book. You are misjudging its contents, and its message, and therefore not living in the complete truth of the Word of God.
I find it remarkable also that we worship the Holy Trinity, who presents Himself to us as the Spirit of Truth, and yet - your worship of Him is lacking in truth. How can that be? How can you not worship God in truth? And so what is your truth based on? Can I say it is based on the Holy Spirit who guides you? How can the Holy Spirit guide you to an interpretation that is completely different than the one written by the evangelists themselves????
So you interpreted these verses based on your own wisdom; you are making a judgement based on your own wisdom. That's really arrogant. Why don't you consult the person who wrote it?
Its like me making a judgement about a girl called Marie on facebook. I see her picture and read a few statements from her profile. I say to myself: "OK.. well, she's obviously Christian, she's pretty, she's intelligent - because its a good name, she loves pasta and hates fast cars".
Wouldn't it be more sensible to have asked her friends to confirm that this is what she is like??
Your understanding of the term "spiritual tradition" is flawed. The term "spiritual tradition" is a theological term. OK? In theology, you'll learn that not everything was written down. Teachings were passed on orally. Not everything is written down in the scriptures. The footnotes are not there! The 1st hand explanation of those who lived with Christ are not there.
As I mentioned previously, we can see this in the example of Joseph who said "How can I commit this sin before the Lord". Who told him it was a sin? The 10 Commandments came AFTER him, by centuries.
You still did not answer this!
Let's take another example -
Saint John's gospel which says: "Receive unto you the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained".
This verse, to us, is the onset of the sacrament of confession. How do we know that ? How did we interpret it that way? Because of the apostolic life we inherited since the early Church. The verbal footnotes we received expressed to us in the writings, the life and the Spirit of the Early Church.
You do not interpret this as meaning the start of a sacrament of confession. You agree? So with what justification, or validity do you have when you interpret that verse?? How do you know how you interpret it is correct?? How?
Im not saying you need to be part of the Orthodox Church to have the right understanding, nor ours, but I am saying that you are reading a book without any validity from its authors. Therefore, you are misjudging a book. You are misjudging its contents, and its message, and therefore not living in the complete truth of the Word of God.
I find it remarkable also that we worship the Holy Trinity, who presents Himself to us as the Spirit of Truth, and yet - your worship of Him is lacking in truth. How can that be? How can you not worship God in truth? And so what is your truth based on? Can I say it is based on the Holy Spirit who guides you? How can the Holy Spirit guide you to an interpretation that is completely different than the one written by the evangelists themselves????
So you interpreted these verses based on your own wisdom; you are making a judgement based on your own wisdom. That's really arrogant. Why don't you consult the person who wrote it?
Its like me making a judgement about a girl called Marie on facebook. I see her picture and read a few statements from her profile. I say to myself: "OK.. well, she's obviously Christian, she's pretty, she's intelligent - because its a good name, she loves pasta and hates fast cars".
Wouldn't it be more sensible to have asked her friends to confirm that this is what she is like??
Ok..not everything is written down in the scriptures..I agree with that..but everything related to the salvation teachings and true doctrines of Jesus Christ are written down by the apostles..God's words are plain and right to those who find knowledge..that's why Jesus has anointed by God to save us from our sins..He was also sent because he will make a new covenant..
"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" heb. 8:8
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. heb 8:7
That's why the new covenant is now written in the Bible for us to be save if we will follow God's commandments.
As usual, to many Protest-ants, they avoid and skirt the Eucharistic Command of Our Lord and His institution of the Sacrament. You did not tell me about your Bible. Please answer the questions before you continue with your false interpretations.
I have yet to hear from ANY Protest-ant find a way to disqualify the Command given in Four Separate Gospels. They skirt the issue completely. By-the-way, I am in elementary school.
[quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117877#msg117877 date=1281522309] Ok..not everything is written down in the scriptures..I agree with that..but everything related to the salvation teachings and true doctrines of Jesus Christ are written down by the apostles..
Great. So now, we are getting somewhere. You have understood the gift of Christ's sacrifice for us on the cross. That's great.
This is called "PARTIAL TRUTH". And that's fine; but it is unwise to reject the complete TRUTH. As we worship God in Spirit and Truth, we must be open towards the truth and search of it.
Its like this: Can you make a judgement, a PROPER judgement about anything from only 1 side of the story? You need everyone's side of the story... right?
God's words are plain and right to those who find knowledge..that's why Jesus has anointed by God to save us from our sins..He was also sent because he will make a new covenant..
"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" heb. 8:8
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. heb 8:7
That's why the new covenant is now written in the Bible for us to be save if we will follow God's commandments.
These statements are a dichotomy. Let's focus now on the "FULL TRUTH" or the "COMPLETE" Truth.
How do you search for that? How do you ensure that nothing in your understanding is interpreted with errors?
Let's look at a few issues here:
a) "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins you retain are retained" - as was said to the Apostles.
To us, we understand this to be the onset of confession. It is a sacrament. What do you understand it as? Is this also a sacrament for you?
b) "He who believes and is baptised is saved"
Christ put the condition of baptism with belief. Baptism IS a sacrament. What did you understand by the condition of "baptism"? in this statement?? Is our interpretation correct? Are we singing from the same hymnsheet??
Baptism, confession, communion, these are not novelties.. these are life giving sacraments.
We are saved by Grace. That Grace is administered to us through Baptism - where we are mystically buried with Christ. We unite with Him in the Power of His victory over death. Is it water that saves?? Is this the key to salvation? The key is the mystery of uniting with Christ. This was given to us THROUGH the sacrament of baptism.
The thief on the cross was baptised - He died and resurrected with Christ. So, by no means water is essential for baptism, but if it is available, why do we not use it for its purpose in this sacrament??
The martyrs who died were said to have been baptised in their blood.
There are many issues we differ on, but I can see clearly that your problem is an ignorant driven agenda that I pray will cease for a few hours, allowing you the time to reflect on understanding the early apostolic Church and the Holy Apostolic Sacraments, through which we enjoy the FULLNESS of the Christian life that Christ intended for us.
[quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117868#msg117868 date=1281503928] [quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=9549.msg117867#msg117867 date=1281500096] [quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117856#msg117856 date=1281490203] You really lack of understanding can't you understand the line "none of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate"
But the Bible was not complete when that that was written. How can you use that argument when an entire half of the Bible was not written until after?
What do you mean? can you ask specifically?
You are interpreting that verse to say that the Bible is complete, and subsequently, more emphasis should be placed on the Bible than anything else, i.e, tradition, correct? My counter argument is that since that was a part of the Old Testament, that might not be the true interpretation of the verse, because there was a part of the Bible missing when that was written- the New Testament.
2 Peter 1:20-21 says: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
St. Peter himself shows us that the scripture isn't for private interpretation, but should be given by the Holy Spirit which is the same Person of the Trinity that inspired the "holy men of God" to write the scriptures. Therefore we use the interpretation of scripture passed down to us from "holy men of God", who knew the apostles and were filled with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit also doesn't change it's mind about the scripture as time passes. Therefore the interpretation given to the church fathers by the Holy Spirit is the same interpretation that should be held today. Also these holy men, that knew the apostles, also passed down the traditions, directly from the apostles.
For example the holy liturgy was given to us by St. Mark. He was the one that first prayed it in Egypt. It was then passed down orally, until St. Basil wrote it down. Therefore saying that the sacrament of the Eucharist is heretical or wrong is calling St. Mark heretical. This is the same St. Mark whose home Christ held the passover in and who wrote the Gospel of St. Mark. Now is what is what is said and done in the liturgy in the scriptures. No, however it is passed down to us by he whose home was the first church, and the first place in which the eucharist was administered (by Christ himself I may add)
Furthermore there was no scripture, until Moses came around. How then did abraham know to give a tenth of all he had to Melchizedek the Priest? This was obviously passed down through tradition. How did Abel know to give his first fruits to God? Tradition.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117878#msg117878 date=1281525676]I have yet to hear from ANY Protest-ant find a way to disqualify the Command given in Four Separate Gospels. They skirt the issue completely. John does not contain the conversation to which you refer in it's "Last Supper" account (John 13). Only 3 Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) relay the eating of bread and wine, in only 1 of those (Luke) the only call, "do this in remembrance of Me."
That is the singular phrase upon which the bread denominations are based, a phrase which could easily refer to quite a number of things in this context. They were at that moment and immediately prior a: observing the passover festival (with "fervent desire" says Jesus); b: preparing for Jesus's betrayal; c: giving thanks; d: breaking bread; e: giving bread; f: receiving bread. Immediately after the directive: a: eating bread; b: giving wine; c: receiving wine; d: drinking wine; e: contemplating who would betray Jesus. Then again, there is the spiritual aspect, wherein the Body is Word of God (John 1, Matthew 4:4) and the Blood is Will of God (Mark 3:35, Matthew 20:20-28, 1 Peter 1:2). And Jesus often spoke of spiritual matters by talking of physical matters.
Fact is, if you want to believe that eating physical bread and physical wine is the foremost of the options possible, that's what you're going to believe. I think it's a shallow position, personally, though I am not opposed to remembrance in the physical (preferably in the celebration of passover), I would rather remember Him by consuming the Word of God and living His Will daily than wait in queue to get a scrap of bread and a sip of wine weekly. And I think scripture is pretty clear that it is not physical bread and wine that He finds important: Matt 16:5-12, Luke 4:4, Luke 7:33, Colossians 2:16.
Do you still ask if you must go back into your mothers womb when Jesus speaks of being reborn? In the words of Jesus, "How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?"
I am curious, he who is in elementary school, do you consider what I said to be skirting this issue? And, if so, please tell me how it is so, for my greatest desire is for truth; I am not too proud to garner it from children.
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9549.msg117889#msg117889 date=1281539733] 2 Peter 1:20-21 says: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
St. Peter himself shows us that the scripture isn't for private interpretation, but should be given by the Holy Spirit which is the same Person of the Trinity that inspired the "holy men of God" to write the scriptures. Therefore we use the interpretation of scripture passed down to us from "holy men of God", who knew the apostles and were filled with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit also doesn't change it's mind about the scripture as time passes. Therefore the interpretation given to the church fathers by the Holy Spirit is the same interpretation that should be held today. Also these holy men, that knew the apostles, also passed down the traditions, directly from the apostles.
For example the holy liturgy was given to us by St. Mark. He was the one that first prayed it in Egypt. It was then passed down orally, until St. Basil wrote it down. Therefore saying that the sacrament of the Eucharist is heretical or wrong is calling St. Mark heretical. This is the same St. Mark whose home Christ held the passover in and who wrote the Gospel of St. Mark. Now is what is what is said and done in the liturgy in the scriptures. No, however it is passed down to us by he whose home was the first church, and the first place in which the eucharist was administered (by Christ himself I may add)
Furthermore there was no scripture, until Moses came around. How then did abraham know to give a tenth of all he had to Melchizedek the Priest? This was obviously passed down through tradition. How did Abel know to give his first fruits to God? Tradition.
I would like to quote Anba Pola,and ask Mr Thackery to respond this and to my post.
Thackery or Flobi 9 (whichever split personality you are using to post),
You still did not mention where you got your Bible from? Who wrote it for you? and Who taught you?
No offense, but the fly-by-night, in the garage operations in the USA, make it absolutely wonderful that every person claims some mastery of the Bible. Do you watch the BET network in the morning on cable in the USA. That's generally where the thought process comes for the stuff you mention.
As for the reference and implication I was making relative to the Holy Body and Holy Blood of Our Lord, I will spell out, since I thought I would save some typing. In the Gospels of Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, Our Lord states: THIS IS MY BODY...THIS IS MY BLOOD. There is no ambiguity. The "Remembrance" aspect is for it to be repeated. In regard to St. John, He states clearly: "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." This discourse is a completion of the previous three citations. To deny any of the other references would have been to call Him a liar [God forbid].
As for the born again stuff, that is what the Sacrament of Baptism is for as an initial point, and the Sacrament of Confession and the Sacrament of Sacraments in the Eucharist continue.
When did your Church begin? You follow the teachings of someone. He taught you. You are carrying it forward. That in itself is tradition. You have your services (that is also by tradition--your tradition).
It is not just eating bread or wine, by the Holy Spirit, they become a fulfillment, His Holy Body and Blood. A proper Christian will carry forward with a process of penance, and repentance, and present for sacrifice and to receive the Sacrifice. It is personal involvement in the re-Enactment of the Salvation on the Cross and the Triumph of the Resurrection.
I find, no different than what has commented previously by others, you are incomplete...sort of like a course in college. If you do not complete your course, you will not have learned or grown. Grow a little, maybe you will be able to have a little stretch in your "stiff neck" to be able to have an inward reflection.
Do not be insulting to those who have presented a good account from history, the Church tradition, and Its teachings.
I tried to look-up Church of God International, and I was not quite sure where to look. Which century should I look? I would appreciate a reference as to who the founder was.
Acts 2:41-43 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Do not take my words for granted, instead learn the trustful unbiased truth from the teaching and practice of the Apostles, i.e. the earliest original foundation of the Lord's Church. In your prayers ask the Lord for guidance towards the correct path, the Lord will indeed help you.
Luke 24:30-31 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. Tradition tells us that St Luke was one of these two disciples, which is very likely.
For the record, I am not Thackery and as such, you did not ask me these questions before. However, I will reply for myself to the ones here.
My Bible is available freely at biblegateway.com. I also utilize Strong's Concordance (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html) for passages which make less sense (usually because of transliteration issues, like the word Bishop which should never be in a Bible translation). I commonly use New King James Version, though often I find myself making more use out of Young's Literal Translation. So, in the immediate sense, I get the Bible from there.
In the less direct sense (probably what you really wanted to know), those who call themselves Churches handled it for a long time (these are those organizations who claim to be the source of the Bible). And before that, it came from God. Individual prophets of God who spoke with God's authority wrote His Word to all as God called them. It came together by the unstoppable power of God, yes though in the hands of men. The Word of God, what you call the Bible and what you call Jesus, and they are one and the same, came from God and is God (see John 1). You must understand, you who are in elementary school, that many who are not part of the oldest of Churches do not actually accept the history those Churches present to a significant degree. I have had no intention of insulting, but if disagreeing is insulting, then it is a regrettable side effect.
As far as bread being literal body etc.: I referred you to scriptures which say what the body and blood of Christ are, and scriptures reprimanding apostles for thinking Jesus would speak importantly of actual bread. You have a tremendous desire that the body of Christ remain bread and His blood remain wine, then as such you will have them. I do hope they are tasty for you. (I remember when I was Roman Catholic, I thought the wine was completely delicious...the wafers, not so much.)
"To deny any of the other references would have been to call Him a liar [God forbid]." It sounds as though you are taking my mention that the discourse not being in John means that I believe it did not happen. I assure you this is incorrect. I only intended that to inform you that your count of 4 in the previous post for the discourse was incorrect (and at that, my pointing it out really is totally irrelevant).
I personally couldn't take offense at the phrase "fly-by-night, in the garage operations in the USA," especially since I do not belong to any of those. I belong only to God, not to an organization here on Earth like those that call themselves Churches. I watch little television, and of that it is almost entirely The Food Network. I enjoy the novel culinary ideas they present and some of their competitions are entertaining.
For your seeming interpretation of Church, as an organization of which one would be a member, there is no such application for me. I became a follower of Jesus who is the Word of God when I found out that the Bible who is the Word of God was true. It was then I realized that Jesus was with me talking to me and loving me. Now knowing that all men are liars (I was very humbled when I realized He included me in that, and am again every time I think of it), I began to test everything with Scripture...especially in searching for a Church (as the organization), I haven't found an organization on Earth yet I would indeed label Christ's church (though I've found people in these organizations I would).
And service (as you asked), I found, was something to give to the poor to lift them up (whereby God will lift me up), not a gathering for rituals to lift myself up (whereby God will push me down). So my teacher is the Bible, which indeed is alive and is the Word of God, and I continue to consult Him. If you have to go to someone else to get God's Word and need a Teacher besides Him, it seems you believe your Bible is dead. I have so loved my alive Bible.
I actually did not realize the similarity of my beliefs with the Church of God until now (reading the link posted by John_S2000). I can understand the irony of two people with similar beliefs randomly showing up in the same thread and how one could envision that we were the same person.
[quote author=flobi link=topic=9549.msg117935#msg117935 date=1281559058] Now knowing that all men are liars (I was very humbled when I realized He included me in that, and am again every time I think of it)
This part really stood out to me for some reason. Simply out of curiosity, is that written anywhere?
Also, although you question Orthodox Christianity, your faith in Christ seems very strong. I would only caution you from letting any conversation you have with a member of any church to be representative of that entire church. Make sure your search is thorough.
Here's a question: When the Bible calls for a person to seek out the elders of the Church (when someone is sick)...Who are those elders? Do they not have a position, a title, a presence? Which Church?
If one is individualistic as you pronounce, then how would that pertain to the above reference I make?
As for the Bible, whether you want to state clearly or not, directly or not, it came from one of those Churches that you are trying to avoid. Before there was a King James, there was the Coptic, Greek, and Latin versions.
Please do not feel so alone as to avoid the obvious, and do not let pride deny you the pleasure of God's Presence.
There is no need to banter back and forth.
I will leave you with a verse from the Gospel of St. John, the first chapter: "and the Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it." I truly pray and hope that you have a chance to receive God's Presence. The Bible is Living, The Word of God in the Bible is living, breathing, and functioning in the Holy Orthodox Church. You may say what you like, do as you wish, and ultimately there will be Judgment Day, and we will all have our answer. I am confident and faithful in my Orthodox Church.
You asked a question, we answered in different ways with different points to your question. Please do not continue with the thought of proselytizing on this forum.
A verse for anyone who falsely believes that the Holy Spirit is not a Person of the Holy Trinity:
Acts 13:2-3 2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
When someone decides to follow her/his own heart alone all the time and not even consider the experiences of known saints there is a great danger of stumbling and fall. It is unwise, and God advised us not to do that:
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding
Comments
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=9436.msg117649#msg117649
An important detail concerning Sunday: in the NT the Lord's Day became the Day of His Resurrection. This new day has taken precedence over Saturday because Our Lord Jesus Christ is also the Lord of the Sabbath.
Psa 118:24
This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.
Mar 2:28
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Amen.
GBU
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117817#msg117817 date=1281466088]You are doing what our previous friend wants to do. Reading the Bible according to your own interpretation.And are you to say that it is without the Holy Spirit guiding me then that I read scripture? Yet you don't see me read scripture nor can you fully know the movements of the Holy Spirit.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117817#msg117817 date=1281466088]You speak of wolves, but no-where are we taught that the Church would be lost. This is the very opposite of what is taught in the Bible. You may read that into the Bible, but again, on what authority do you read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means?In fact, I never said I read that, only that they wrote "at least one interpretation." My purpose in including that was to demonstrate that a method of identifying validity seems necessary. After all, if you cannot detect my spirit, then you clearly cannot know if I am one myself.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117817#msg117817 date=1281466088]How do we know that what we are taught is true? It is, in one regard at least, because it is what has always been taught from the Apostolic times and in all places. The witness is clear that there was a universality of belief in all of these things from the beginning, and long before there was a New Testament. If you reject the early Church has having fallen into error, how can you then rest on the Bible which the early Church produced and canonised?Though you reversed my question (changing the essence of it slightly), I'll accept this. You really should answer the questions people ask though, and not make up your own. It's easy to create straw men that way. I understand that your position is that one must first accept the history of your church in order to verify that it is true. May I presume then that the position that "the early Church produced" the scripture is a part of your history (which I have not as of yet accepted)? If so, then it's a loaded question (that is, the question begging logical fallacy).
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117817#msg117817 date=1281466088]We are unable to discuss one opinion against another, that is not how Orthodoxy works. We have already received the true light, and found the true faith, and worship the Holy Trinity with a true worship. Anything else is something less.I actually didn't have the intent to discuss any of these with you, though I'm always up for an honest discussion. I really only intended to find out how your church distinguishes from valid and invalid doctrine. Most of the other stuff I included because of this prior statement:
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg117754#msg117754 date=1281432096]If you are going to make general criticisms of the Orthodox Church it is fair that we know where youy are coming from.Not that I intended to make criticisms, but to many churches even positing the question of how one determines what doctrine is true and what is not can be seen as criticism, and that what I said might be taken as such.
Thank you for answering my questions and addressing my post, Peter Farrington. I pray that the Father in Heaven blesses you, and all here.
And GBU, I appreciate the link to the article. I'd be interested in having a look.
I am both. The diocese I belong to is the British Orthodox Church, and it is a diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. There is a French Orthodox Church which is also a diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. I expect that as God wills there will be other dioceses which are naturally part of the cultures of different places in the world but are united in the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate.
Father Peter
John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Canon Scripture and genuine Church Tradition are considered like two sides of the SAME gold coin, i.e. they are both edifying as Tradition teaches practical faith and explains Scripture. The Holy Spirit constantly support and protect the Church. The Church Tradition exists because of the Holy Spirit's action in the Church. We use 'Holy' for both, as we say the 'Holy Scripture' and also say the 'Holy Tradition'.
GBU
Lol. This is what I mean. You take words out of context and apply them to whatever you want. Where does the Bible teach us about making the sign of the cross, or how to make the prophora, or what prayers to pray over the eucharistic elements etc etc.
You are twisting one idea - has God completed the Scripture - with he meaning - is everything about the christian life only and entirely found in the bible.
You are ignoring the word of scripture - keep the tradition.
You cannot explain what the bible teaches because you are not found within the life of the Church in which the Holy Spirit produced the Bible.
What were the Christians doing before the New Testament was written? Were they just sitting there waiting for Revelation to be written so the Bible would be 'complete' or did they not even think in such terms - how could they. They lived the life of the Holy Spirit, taught by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and then their appointed bishops, just as Orthodox have always done. The Bible is part of the life of the Church, the Church exists even before a single book of the New Testament is written.
Father Peter
You really lack of understanding can't you understand the line "none of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate" the problem is that you don't find it in the bible you find some of your doctrines in the teachings of men which are in vain (mark 7:7)..I believe that some of your teachings are just created by men that by Jesus Christ..you don't have any proof that Jesus really taught it like the sign of the cross..you have proof? then what verse in the bible can I find that verse? in fact when He prayed to God in the garden of gethsemane did He make the sign of the cross?? You see you are obeying some of the teachings of men..I think your just making your own teachings..the Bible is complete you just don't find it..
When was the Bible compiled in the form we have it? Was it year 1,2,3,4,...,10,....21,...,36,...,48,...,52,...100,...,...?
The Books were carried in oral tradition before they were transcribed fully.
I believe JohnS_2000 quotation from the Gospel of St. John is quite explicit:
John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
It is one of my favorite verses.
Is it part of the Bible you use?
When the Bible in the Four Gospels states clearly: "This is my Body...This is my Blood..." Our Church believes Our Lord. It is so obvious. It is stated clearly without any ambiguity. Yet, those that carry your frame of thought go on and on about it being figurative. So you can be figurative, when direct contraction from the Master's own words, but you want to be explicit when quoting other verses that are taken out of context.
I believe Fr. Peter made himself quite clear in being able to equate the consistency of the Word of God in the Life of the Church and in Its Declaration of Dogma and Doctrine with the fullness of the Holy Scriptures. You cannot pick and choose when you want to take things literally. The Declaration of the Sacrament (Mystery) of the Holy Eucharist is by Our Master's very mouth. To deny this four times repeated Declaration is tantamount to calling Our Lord a liar [God forbid].
Your "logic" is inconsistent in its application, and hence cannot be logical.
Fr. Peter is a very special person because he has journeyed and followed the narrow road to get to this point in his life. He is devout to his [our] Master. He is at this point because he put the Word of God before his own word and before any other person's opinion.
God's Word [Christ, Who is the Second Person of the Trinity] is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and in the Teachings of His [Christ's] Bride--the Holy Orthodox Church. There is no one that will know the Bridegroom [Christ] as well as His Own Bride [the Church].
If the Sign of the Cross is so abominable, then why is it that Protestant Churches have Crosses mounted also?
The making of the Sign of the Cross is a reminder of so many things from the Bible, including the declaration, "Go therefore and baptize ye them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." In terms of sentence structure, there is an inferred equality with the Three Persons mentioned. When you make the Sign of the Cross you are repeating the same thing that Our Lord said Himself.
When the Gospel of St. John speaks of the Holy Spirit and in the oration of the Lord, it is stated: "...the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He [the Holy Spirit] shall teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things I have said unto you..." I believe "He" as a pronoun is explicit for a person and not a "force".
By the way the codification and compilation of the Holy Bible happened in Egypt and then transferred to the rest of the world under the aegis and leadership of the Church of Alexandria. I am curious, the "Bible" that you use, where does it come from? Who wrote it? Who compiled it? Who translated it?
If you do some research, and open your heart, you will find that the Holy Spirit gave you a gift through the people of Egypt and the Orthodox Church in Egypt.
The making of the Sign of the Cross is a reminder of so many things from the Bible, including the declaration, "Go therefore and baptize ye them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." In terms of sentence structure, there is an inferred equality with the Three Persons mentioned. When you make the Sign of the Cross you are repeating the same thing that Our Lord said Himself.
So your notion to that verse is to perform the sign of the cross..that's what I'm talking about..your trying to insist that Jesus really taught us the sign of the cross with that verse..it's very sad to hear that your trying to state that I'm lacking logic in the studying the bible where in fact it is you who lack understanding..why did I say so?? Its very explicit to understand that the verse you stated is a commandment to the disciples that they should baptize the people with the Name of the father, the son and the holy spirit..is there sign of the cross in this statement?? I believe that the logic here is very clear..even an elementary student can understand this verse very clear..you just don't admit it that Jesus did not really taught us to do such thing..you don't have any proof..your basis is only a sign or an act of doing it..but Jesus did not really taught it...try to read the whole bible if you can see sign of the cross,,if you can find then I'll believe in you..don't add or make your own teachings cause its against in the bible..that's why I believe that the bible is complete the problem only is many people in this world just want to make their own understanding with their selves and sometimes believe on the teachings of men..you have no proof to that Jesus did really make the sign of the cross..
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you". Deuteronomy 4:2
You really lack of understanding can't you understand the line "none of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate"
But the Bible was not complete when that that was written. How can you use that argument when an entire half of the Bible was not written until after?
[quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117856#msg117856 date=1281490203]
You really lack of understanding can't you understand the line "none of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate"
But the Bible was not complete when that that was written. How can you use that argument when an entire half of the Bible was not written until after?
What do you mean? can you ask specifically?
Im just curious, but what makes you think that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one?
For example -
Christ clearly states in John: "Receive unto you the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins you retain will be retained".
For us, we have understood this as the institution of the sacrament of confession.
How have you understood it?
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
This sign of the Son of man IS the Cross, it is the descriptive emblem of His Passion. Like the shadow of the brass serpent that God commanded Moses to make and raise, that spared and healed from the deadly poisonous bites, so was the Son of man raised on the Cross to reclaim eternal life for humanity.
I think a recently formed church without an Apostolic root cannot easily admit the importance of Christian Tradition because in fact it would threaten her authority within her congregation. If she survives, after many centuries she will have then to admit she has some sort of tradition too, but its very own - though a separate and non Apostolic tradition.
With the Grace of God, the Orthodox Apostolic Church is alive despite too many fights against her. She will continue to expand and grow under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Consider this as a system of holy continual education, aiming for the continual growth of the Church, its expansion and its maintenance.
HH Pope Shenouda III explained that a Church without Tradition lacks the wealth of Christian pearls gained throughout many centuries of correct faithful worship, that started from the day when God visibly poured His Holy Spirit on the Apostles, when they started to preach the Gospel to all nations.
GBU
Your understanding of the term "spiritual tradition" is flawed. The term "spiritual tradition" is a theological term. OK? In theology, you'll learn that not everything was written down. Teachings were passed on orally. Not everything is written down in the scriptures. The footnotes are not there! The 1st hand explanation of those who lived with Christ are not there.
As I mentioned previously, we can see this in the example of Joseph who said "How can I commit this sin before the Lord". Who told him it was a sin? The 10 Commandments came AFTER him, by centuries.
You still did not answer this!
Let's take another example -
Saint John's gospel which says: "Receive unto you the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained".
This verse, to us, is the onset of the sacrament of confession. How do we know that ? How did we interpret it that way? Because of the apostolic life we inherited since the early Church. The verbal footnotes we received expressed to us in the writings, the life and the Spirit of the Early Church.
You do not interpret this as meaning the start of a sacrament of confession. You agree? So with what justification, or validity do you have when you interpret that verse?? How do you know how you interpret it is correct?? How?
Im not saying you need to be part of the Orthodox Church to have the right understanding, nor ours, but I am saying that you are reading a book without any validity from its authors. Therefore, you are misjudging a book. You are misjudging its contents, and its message, and therefore not living in the complete truth of the Word of God.
I find it remarkable also that we worship the Holy Trinity, who presents Himself to us as the Spirit of Truth, and yet - your worship of Him is lacking in truth. How can that be? How can you not worship God in truth? And so what is your truth based on? Can I say it is based on the Holy Spirit who guides you? How can the Holy Spirit guide you to an interpretation that is completely different than the one written by the evangelists themselves????
So you interpreted these verses based on your own wisdom; you are making a judgement based on your own wisdom. That's really arrogant. Why don't you consult the person who wrote it?
Its like me making a judgement about a girl called Marie on facebook. I see her picture and read a few statements from her profile. I say to myself:
"OK.. well, she's obviously Christian, she's pretty, she's intelligent - because its a good name, she loves pasta and hates fast cars".
Wouldn't it be more sensible to have asked her friends to confirm that this is what she is like??
Thackery,
Your understanding of the term "spiritual tradition" is flawed. The term "spiritual tradition" is a theological term. OK? In theology, you'll learn that not everything was written down. Teachings were passed on orally. Not everything is written down in the scriptures. The footnotes are not there! The 1st hand explanation of those who lived with Christ are not there.
As I mentioned previously, we can see this in the example of Joseph who said "How can I commit this sin before the Lord". Who told him it was a sin? The 10 Commandments came AFTER him, by centuries.
You still did not answer this!
Let's take another example -
Saint John's gospel which says: "Receive unto you the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained".
This verse, to us, is the onset of the sacrament of confession. How do we know that ? How did we interpret it that way? Because of the apostolic life we inherited since the early Church. The verbal footnotes we received expressed to us in the writings, the life and the Spirit of the Early Church.
You do not interpret this as meaning the start of a sacrament of confession. You agree? So with what justification, or validity do you have when you interpret that verse?? How do you know how you interpret it is correct?? How?
Im not saying you need to be part of the Orthodox Church to have the right understanding, nor ours, but I am saying that you are reading a book without any validity from its authors. Therefore, you are misjudging a book. You are misjudging its contents, and its message, and therefore not living in the complete truth of the Word of God.
I find it remarkable also that we worship the Holy Trinity, who presents Himself to us as the Spirit of Truth, and yet - your worship of Him is lacking in truth. How can that be? How can you not worship God in truth? And so what is your truth based on? Can I say it is based on the Holy Spirit who guides you? How can the Holy Spirit guide you to an interpretation that is completely different than the one written by the evangelists themselves????
So you interpreted these verses based on your own wisdom; you are making a judgement based on your own wisdom. That's really arrogant. Why don't you consult the person who wrote it?
Its like me making a judgement about a girl called Marie on facebook. I see her picture and read a few statements from her profile. I say to myself:
"OK.. well, she's obviously Christian, she's pretty, she's intelligent - because its a good name, she loves pasta and hates fast cars".
Wouldn't it be more sensible to have asked her friends to confirm that this is what she is like??
Ok..not everything is written down in the scriptures..I agree with that..but everything related to the salvation teachings and true doctrines of Jesus Christ are written down by the apostles..God's words are plain and right to those who find knowledge..that's why Jesus has anointed by God to save us from our sins..He was also sent because he will make a new covenant..
"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" heb. 8:8
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. heb 8:7
That's why the new covenant is now written in the Bible for us to be save if we will follow God's commandments.
As usual, to many Protest-ants, they avoid and skirt the Eucharistic Command of Our Lord and His institution of the Sacrament. You did not tell me about your Bible. Please answer the questions before you continue with your false interpretations.
I have yet to hear from ANY Protest-ant find a way to disqualify the Command given in Four Separate Gospels. They skirt the issue completely. By-the-way, I am in elementary school.
Ok..not everything is written down in the scriptures..I agree with that..but everything related to the salvation teachings and true doctrines of Jesus Christ are written down by the apostles..
Great. So now, we are getting somewhere.
You have understood the gift of Christ's sacrifice for us on the cross. That's great.
This is called "PARTIAL TRUTH". And that's fine; but it is unwise to reject the complete TRUTH. As we worship God in Spirit and Truth, we must be open towards the truth and search of it.
Its like this: Can you make a judgement, a PROPER judgement about anything from only 1 side of the story? You need everyone's side of the story... right?
These statements are a dichotomy. Let's focus now on the "FULL TRUTH" or the "COMPLETE" Truth.
How do you search for that? How do you ensure that nothing in your understanding is interpreted with errors?
Let's look at a few issues here:
a) "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins you retain are retained" - as was said to the Apostles.
To us, we understand this to be the onset of confession. It is a sacrament. What do you understand it as? Is this also a sacrament for you?
b) "He who believes and is baptised is saved"
Christ put the condition of baptism with belief. Baptism IS a sacrament. What did you understand by the condition of "baptism"? in this statement?? Is our interpretation correct? Are we singing from the same hymnsheet??
Baptism, confession, communion, these are not novelties.. these are life giving sacraments.
We are saved by Grace. That Grace is administered to us through Baptism - where we are mystically buried with Christ. We unite with Him in the Power of His victory over death. Is it water that saves?? Is this the key to salvation? The key is the mystery of uniting with Christ. This was given to us THROUGH the sacrament of baptism.
The thief on the cross was baptised - He died and resurrected with Christ. So, by no means water is essential for baptism, but if it is available, why do we not use it for its purpose in this sacrament??
The martyrs who died were said to have been baptised in their blood.
There are many issues we differ on, but I can see clearly that your problem is an ignorant driven agenda that I pray will cease for a few hours, allowing you the time to reflect on understanding the early apostolic Church and the Holy Apostolic Sacraments, through which we enjoy the FULLNESS of the Christian life that Christ intended for us.
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=9549.msg117867#msg117867 date=1281500096]
[quote author=Thackeray61 link=topic=9549.msg117856#msg117856 date=1281490203]
You really lack of understanding can't you understand the line "none of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate"
But the Bible was not complete when that that was written. How can you use that argument when an entire half of the Bible was not written until after?
What do you mean? can you ask specifically?
You are interpreting that verse to say that the Bible is complete, and subsequently, more emphasis should be placed on the Bible than anything else, i.e, tradition, correct? My counter argument is that since that was a part of the Old Testament, that might not be the true interpretation of the verse, because there was a part of the Bible missing when that was written- the New Testament.
St. Peter himself shows us that the scripture isn't for private interpretation, but should be given by the Holy Spirit which is the same Person of the Trinity that inspired the "holy men of God" to write the scriptures. Therefore we use the interpretation of scripture passed down to us from "holy men of God", who knew the apostles and were filled with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit also doesn't change it's mind about the scripture as time passes. Therefore the interpretation given to the church fathers by the Holy Spirit is the same interpretation that should be held today. Also these holy men, that knew the apostles, also passed down the traditions, directly from the apostles.
For example the holy liturgy was given to us by St. Mark. He was the one that first prayed it in Egypt. It was then passed down orally, until St. Basil wrote it down. Therefore saying that the sacrament of the Eucharist is heretical or wrong is calling St. Mark heretical. This is the same St. Mark whose home Christ held the passover in and who wrote the Gospel of St. Mark. Now is what is what is said and done in the liturgy in the scriptures. No, however it is passed down to us by he whose home was the first church, and the first place in which the eucharist was administered (by Christ himself I may add)
Furthermore there was no scripture, until Moses came around. How then did abraham know to give a tenth of all he had to Melchizedek the Priest? This was obviously passed down through tradition. How did Abel know to give his first fruits to God? Tradition.
John does not contain the conversation to which you refer in it's "Last Supper" account (John 13). Only 3 Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) relay the eating of bread and wine, in only 1 of those (Luke) the only call, "do this in remembrance of Me."
That is the singular phrase upon which the bread denominations are based, a phrase which could easily refer to quite a number of things in this context. They were at that moment and immediately prior a: observing the passover festival (with "fervent desire" says Jesus); b: preparing for Jesus's betrayal; c: giving thanks; d: breaking bread; e: giving bread; f: receiving bread. Immediately after the directive: a: eating bread; b: giving wine; c: receiving wine; d: drinking wine; e: contemplating who would betray Jesus. Then again, there is the spiritual aspect, wherein the Body is Word of God (John 1, Matthew 4:4) and the Blood is Will of God (Mark 3:35, Matthew 20:20-28, 1 Peter 1:2). And Jesus often spoke of spiritual matters by talking of physical matters.
Fact is, if you want to believe that eating physical bread and physical wine is the foremost of the options possible, that's what you're going to believe. I think it's a shallow position, personally, though I am not opposed to remembrance in the physical (preferably in the celebration of passover), I would rather remember Him by consuming the Word of God and living His Will daily than wait in queue to get a scrap of bread and a sip of wine weekly. And I think scripture is pretty clear that it is not physical bread and wine that He finds important: Matt 16:5-12, Luke 4:4, Luke 7:33, Colossians 2:16.
Do you still ask if you must go back into your mothers womb when Jesus speaks of being reborn? In the words of Jesus, "How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?"
I am curious, he who is in elementary school, do you consider what I said to be skirting this issue? And, if so, please tell me how it is so, for my greatest desire is for truth; I am not too proud to garner it from children.
2 Peter 1:20-21 says: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
St. Peter himself shows us that the scripture isn't for private interpretation, but should be given by the Holy Spirit which is the same Person of the Trinity that inspired the "holy men of God" to write the scriptures. Therefore we use the interpretation of scripture passed down to us from "holy men of God", who knew the apostles and were filled with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit also doesn't change it's mind about the scripture as time passes. Therefore the interpretation given to the church fathers by the Holy Spirit is the same interpretation that should be held today. Also these holy men, that knew the apostles, also passed down the traditions, directly from the apostles.
For example the holy liturgy was given to us by St. Mark. He was the one that first prayed it in Egypt. It was then passed down orally, until St. Basil wrote it down. Therefore saying that the sacrament of the Eucharist is heretical or wrong is calling St. Mark heretical. This is the same St. Mark whose home Christ held the passover in and who wrote the Gospel of St. Mark. Now is what is what is said and done in the liturgy in the scriptures. No, however it is passed down to us by he whose home was the first church, and the first place in which the eucharist was administered (by Christ himself I may add)
Furthermore there was no scripture, until Moses came around. How then did abraham know to give a tenth of all he had to Melchizedek the Priest? This was obviously passed down through tradition. How did Abel know to give his first fruits to God? Tradition.
I would like to quote Anba Pola,and ask Mr Thackery to respond this and to my post.
I think nothing could be as clear as this.
You still did not mention where you got your Bible from? Who wrote it for you? and Who taught you?
No offense, but the fly-by-night, in the garage operations in the USA, make it absolutely wonderful that every person claims some mastery of the Bible. Do you watch the BET network in the morning on cable in the USA. That's generally where the thought process comes for the stuff you mention.
As for the reference and implication I was making relative to the Holy Body and Holy Blood of Our Lord, I will spell out, since I thought I would save some typing. In the Gospels of Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, Our Lord states: THIS IS MY BODY...THIS IS MY BLOOD. There is no ambiguity. The "Remembrance" aspect is for it to be repeated. In regard to St. John, He states clearly: "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." This discourse is a completion of the previous three citations. To deny any of the other references would have been to call Him a liar [God forbid].
As for the born again stuff, that is what the Sacrament of Baptism is for as an initial point, and the Sacrament of Confession and the Sacrament of Sacraments in the Eucharist continue.
When did your Church begin? You follow the teachings of someone. He taught you. You are carrying it forward. That in itself is tradition. You have your services (that is also by tradition--your tradition).
It is not just eating bread or wine, by the Holy Spirit, they become a fulfillment, His Holy Body and Blood. A proper Christian will carry forward with a process of penance, and repentance, and present for sacrifice and to receive the Sacrifice. It is personal involvement in the re-Enactment of the Salvation on the Cross and the Triumph of the Resurrection.
I find, no different than what has commented previously by others, you are incomplete...sort of like a course in college. If you do not complete your course, you will not have learned or grown. Grow a little, maybe you will be able to have a little stretch in your "stiff neck" to be able to have an inward reflection.
Do not be insulting to those who have presented a good account from history, the Church tradition, and Its teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_International_%28USA%29
Father Peter has noticed their link with the 7th-day group of churches.
Acts 2:41-43
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Do not take my words for granted, instead learn the trustful unbiased truth from the teaching and practice of the Apostles, i.e. the earliest original foundation of the Lord's Church. In your prayers ask the Lord for guidance towards the correct path, the Lord will indeed help you.
Luke 24:30-31
And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Tradition tells us that St Luke was one of these two disciples, which is very likely.
GBU
My Bible is available freely at biblegateway.com. I also utilize Strong's Concordance (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html) for passages which make less sense (usually because of transliteration issues, like the word Bishop which should never be in a Bible translation). I commonly use New King James Version, though often I find myself making more use out of Young's Literal Translation. So, in the immediate sense, I get the Bible from there.
In the less direct sense (probably what you really wanted to know), those who call themselves Churches handled it for a long time (these are those organizations who claim to be the source of the Bible). And before that, it came from God. Individual prophets of God who spoke with God's authority wrote His Word to all as God called them. It came together by the unstoppable power of God, yes though in the hands of men. The Word of God, what you call the Bible and what you call Jesus, and they are one and the same, came from God and is God (see John 1). You must understand, you who are in elementary school, that many who are not part of the oldest of Churches do not actually accept the history those Churches present to a significant degree. I have had no intention of insulting, but if disagreeing is insulting, then it is a regrettable side effect.
As far as bread being literal body etc.: I referred you to scriptures which say what the body and blood of Christ are, and scriptures reprimanding apostles for thinking Jesus would speak importantly of actual bread. You have a tremendous desire that the body of Christ remain bread and His blood remain wine, then as such you will have them. I do hope they are tasty for you. (I remember when I was Roman Catholic, I thought the wine was completely delicious...the wafers, not so much.)
"To deny any of the other references would have been to call Him a liar [God forbid]." It sounds as though you are taking my mention that the discourse not being in John means that I believe it did not happen. I assure you this is incorrect. I only intended that to inform you that your count of 4 in the previous post for the discourse was incorrect (and at that, my pointing it out really is totally irrelevant).
I personally couldn't take offense at the phrase "fly-by-night, in the garage operations in the USA," especially since I do not belong to any of those. I belong only to God, not to an organization here on Earth like those that call themselves Churches. I watch little television, and of that it is almost entirely The Food Network. I enjoy the novel culinary ideas they present and some of their competitions are entertaining.
For your seeming interpretation of Church, as an organization of which one would be a member, there is no such application for me. I became a follower of Jesus who is the Word of God when I found out that the Bible who is the Word of God was true. It was then I realized that Jesus was with me talking to me and loving me. Now knowing that all men are liars (I was very humbled when I realized He included me in that, and am again every time I think of it), I began to test everything with Scripture...especially in searching for a Church (as the organization), I haven't found an organization on Earth yet I would indeed label Christ's church (though I've found people in these organizations I would).
And service (as you asked), I found, was something to give to the poor to lift them up (whereby God will lift me up), not a gathering for rituals to lift myself up (whereby God will push me down). So my teacher is the Bible, which indeed is alive and is the Word of God, and I continue to consult Him. If you have to go to someone else to get God's Word and need a Teacher besides Him, it seems you believe your Bible is dead. I have so loved my alive Bible.
I actually did not realize the similarity of my beliefs with the Church of God until now (reading the link posted by John_S2000). I can understand the irony of two people with similar beliefs randomly showing up in the same thread and how one could envision that we were the same person.
Now knowing that all men are liars (I was very humbled when I realized He included me in that, and am again every time I think of it)
This part really stood out to me for some reason.
Simply out of curiosity, is that written anywhere?
Also, although you question Orthodox Christianity, your faith in Christ seems very strong. I would only caution you from letting any conversation you have with a member of any church to be representative of that entire church. Make sure your search is thorough.
Here's a question: When the Bible calls for a person to seek out the elders of the Church (when someone is sick)...Who are those elders? Do they not have a position, a title, a presence? Which Church?
If one is individualistic as you pronounce, then how would that pertain to the above reference I make?
As for the Bible, whether you want to state clearly or not, directly or not, it came from one of those Churches that you are trying to avoid. Before there was a King James, there was the Coptic, Greek, and Latin versions.
Please do not feel so alone as to avoid the obvious, and do not let pride deny you the pleasure of God's Presence.
There is no need to banter back and forth.
I will leave you with a verse from the Gospel of St. John, the first chapter: "and the Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it." I truly pray and hope that you have a chance to receive God's Presence. The Bible is Living, The Word of God in the Bible is living, breathing, and functioning in the Holy Orthodox Church. You may say what you like, do as you wish, and ultimately there will be Judgment Day, and we will all have our answer. I am confident and faithful in my Orthodox Church.
You asked a question, we answered in different ways with different points to your question. Please do not continue with the thought of proselytizing on this forum.
Acts 13:2-3
2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
When someone decides to follow her/his own heart alone all the time and not even consider the experiences of known saints there is a great danger of stumbling and fall. It is unwise, and God advised us not to do that:
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding
GBU
How is Christ the Head of the Church, if there is no Church? Does that mean He is solely for you?