Learner's core arguments

[Joe Orthodox]

First, a few observations. I notice that in more than a few of your
posts that when you have nothing of substance to offer in defense of a
Protestant error, you try to generate smoke by recourse to sophistry or
the fallacy of Tu Quoque (“You did it, too!”). Be aware that I’m not
going to play a cat and mouse game. If you repeat the same disproved
statements over and over again, I’ll have no choice but to cut-n-paste
my exposure of your fallacies. Anyway, key points from Learner (12 in
all), followed by my responses:

1) Reliance upon Tradition is circular reasoning, and lacks
self-authentication.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
We don’t rely solely on Tradition, which you’ve been corrected on
numerous times. You've bought into the self-authentication theory that
Craig posted earlier. Speaking as someone with a background in
mathematics, I realize you can’t have a self-authenticating system. The
idea that you could construct a self-contained truth machine was shot
down by Kurt Gödel in the early 20th century and his proofs still stand
today. Every true system must contain premises that are unproven and
are accepted at face value, though it’s helpful to bring in
corroborating evidence from outside the system to support it.
Furthermore, the Holy Tradition isn’t a closed, dead system. The source
of Truth isn’t only Tradition, but the Holy Spirit working in the Church
through its Councils, the Scriptures, and the living Faith of its members.

The early Councils - particularly Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople in
381 - developed and articulated important issues such as the nature of
the Trinity and the relationship between the Son and the Spirit and the
Father - all without a uniform set of NT canon. The Nicene Creed - the
most universal statement of Christendom accepted even in Protestant
circles – was developed by the bishops of the Church ‘prior to’ and
‘during the process of’ canonization of scripture.

Moreover, at a time when the world did not contain printing presses and
books were a luxury, few if any churches had an entire set of NT
Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. And yet, even without mass-produced books,
and without a standard NT text, the Church grew, survived, overcame,
thrived and continued faithfully for 400 years in unbroken, living
continuity. In other words, the focus of the Church was on Christ, the
author of our Faith, a Faith taught to them by Tradition and the
apostolic teachers within the Church, and “not” by a book about Him.
The Church was and is a living organism, not a group of rhetoricians who
know how to read "about" God in a list of cross-referenced,
concordance-aided verse references. And there’s not a single historical
reference that demonstrates this early Church practiced “once
saved/always saved” theology, a theology which didn’t appear until the
1500’s.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

2) Paul's letters clearly teach "onced saved/always saved", in
opposition to Orthodox teaching on salvation.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
You commit the fallacy of exclusion. You can't extricate such a "clear"
teaching without ignoring half of what he wrote, not to mention the
words of the other Apostles. Paul tells us that grace can be gained,
and it can be lost. Taking his writings AS A WHOLE, you arrive at an
Orthodox understanding of salvation in that it’s a lifelong process and
one can fall off the cliff at any time.

"You are separated from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by Law,
you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4)." If falling away
permanently is impossible then Paul's words have no meaning and his
concern is misplaced. The Parable of the Sower (Luke 8) also shows
believers falling away through temptation, or the pursuit of material
pleasures at the expense of producing good fruit.

1 Corinthians 10:12 - "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed
lest he fall."

2 Corinthians 2:15 - “For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among
those who are BEING saved and among those who are perishing.” [Note
that being saved is a process, not a one-time event.]

Hebrews 3:6 - "But Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we
are IF we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm TO
THE END."

Hebrews 6:4-6 - "For it is impossible for those who were once
enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become
partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and
the powers of the age to come, IF they fall away, to renew them again to
repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and
put Him to an open shame."

Hebrews 10:26-27 - "For IF we sin willfully after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation
which will devour the adversaries."

Hebrews 4:11 - "Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest
anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience."

Hebrews 12:15 - "Looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace
of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by
this many become defiled"

2 Peter 3:17-18 - "You therefore, beloved, since you know this
beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being
led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and
knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

In Matthew 10:22, Jesus says to His disciples, "He who endures to the
end will be saved." [The word “will” implies a future event at the end,
and not before.] The context makes clear that it is a warning. Paul
teaches the same in Colossians 1:21-23 - "And you, who once were
alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has
reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy,
and blameless, and above reproach in His sight -- IF indeed you continue
in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the
hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature
under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister."

Reading the entirety of Hebrews 12-14 can be helpful.

"Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that
the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some.
(2 Timothy 2:17-18)"

With good reason, Paul tells us to put on the full armor of God to fight
the devil (Ephesians 6:10-17); so also, Peter warns us to "be sober,
vigilant, for your adversary, the devil, walks about like a roaring
lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8)." In John 10:10, we are
told Satan wants to steal our salvation.

Philippians 2:12 - "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed,
not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling"

To "work out" your salvation with fear and trembling is pure Orthodoxy,
not a 30 second sinner's-prayer-theology. The Scriptural passages I've
provided require an explanation from someone who sustains the idea that
salvation is gained once and for all at a singular moment in this life
and can never be lost. I suspect you'll say these people were never
saved in the first place, in which case it makes the sinner's prayer and
other simplistic devices rather trivial. If I can't know for certain
"when" I'm saved, and "what" exactly I must do to become saved, then
"once saved/always saved" is a misleading marketing trick by fundie
evangelicals, and an extremely dangerous one at that.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

3a) The guys who wrote the Bible belonged to a Church that no longer
exists, which has no connection to the Orthodox Church.

(My quote: “Paul criticised people, not the existence of institutions.
That's a ludicrous claim considering he set up many of those Churches.”

Learner’s quote: “Really? which people did Paul criticise when he
wrote: ‘To the churches in Galatia’? And yes, Paul had to battle heresy
even in the Churches that he founded, so where is your ‘true Church’
which wrote the Bible? Is it is Galatia or Corinth perhaps? There is no
"true Church" in this sense. Various Christian groups
have elements found in earliest Christianity, but not one is the same as
the early Church. All denominations [including Orthodoxy] are products
of historical evolution.”)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
I’ve got news for you, O’ Learned One… those Churches in Galatia and
Corinth and Thessalonica still exist today! And they are Orthodox
Churches under the Greek jurisdiction! You're trying to argue that
because an organic organization, the Church, grew and clarified the
nature of Christ and His Church’s doctrines through councils over the
period of centuries that it's not the same organization. If that
fallacious reasoning holds, then we have to say the Constitution and the
US didn't exist in 1790. I don’t know your sources for this reasoning,
but those Churches mentioned in the NT still exist today, they expanded
into other lands such as Russia and the USA, and remain in the Orthodox
Church at this moment. You choose to demean the use of the word
“Church” in Scripture, solely because you know in your heart that if
such a Church as, say Corinth, was founded by Paul and it has continued
to exist up to today, then the whole Protestant restoration project is a
Lie. So you’re left with taking your felt tip marker and crossing out
the inconvenient passages.

You seem to not understand Christ’s words that tares will be found among
the wheat and His Church would be subjected to tribulations, and you
fallaciously conclude that a sinful individual in the Church means the
Church doesn’t exist, therefore making the Scriptures a book of lies
when it tells us the Church is the pillar of Truth.

Christ orders you to listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he
refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to
hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

You ignore Scripture, and you ignore the commands of your Lord. You
might deny the sun shining on your head today is the same as that which
shined on Socrates, but such recourse to sophistry does nothing to help
your credibility.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

3b) The Church didn't exist when the Bible was wrote.

(Learner’s quote: “First, most of the Bible [the OT - whose Canon the
Orthodox do not agree upon] was written long before there was a Church.”)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
This is the most ridiculous of your assertions. Refer back to my answer
in 3b. Within the NT, Paul and the other Apostles make reference to
physical Churches by names which still exist today. They founded these
Churches and taught the Christians there. These Churches as a whole
make up the Church, visible and invisible (“The Church is the pillar and
foundation of the truth” - 1 Tim 3:15). It's impossible to write about
something that hasn't been created yet. I guess in your mind, Paul was
a madman writing a fairy tale about the world around him.

Furthermore, your comments here contradict your quoted words in key
point 3a.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

4) A few bad people (or people teaching errors) in an organization
invalidate the legitimacy of the organization and its doctrines.

(Learner’s quotes: “Bad people also owned Serfs as did the Church. If
an institution buys and sells humans, foments pogroms against the Jews,
and murders the Old Believers, then I have a difficult time believing
that it is Christ's Church.”
“My problem with these heresies is: if the Orthodox Church is the
"pillar of Truth", which "believes and proclaims that the complete and
integral faith delivered to the saints by Jesus Christ has been
preserved without alteration or diminution only within the communion of
the Orthodox Church", then the existence of these numerous heresies
disprove Orthodoxy's claim to be the "true Church" based entirely on
what Orthodoxy claims about itself. Now, I know the standard Orthodox
answer: we know these to be heresy because the Church [through the Holy
Spirit] said they were – after the fact, of course. Another problem is
that I am sure that many people "trusted" the Holy Spirit to lead the
Church during times of heresy, and actually believed that Iconoclasm,
Nestorianism, and Arianism were true teachings.”)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
You're committing the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Your reasoning
is proven wrong by counter-examples...

“Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Baptist Church can't be Christ's
Church.”
“Baptists sold slaves. An institution that buys and sells humans,
foments racism against blacks, and lynches minorities can't be Christ's
Church. I certainly can’t follow such a person’s teachings on sola
scriptura.”

The truth is that many despicable people believe and trust in the Holy
Spirit, the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ but it doesn’t have any
relevance on the merits of those doctrines. If you want perfect people
to illustrate Christ’s doctrines, then you’re in for a major
disappointment. Your tactic is one of “tar and smear” individuals for
being fallen slobs, while in turn you have little to nothing to offer in
refutation of the doctrines in question. Scripture tells us that tares
will be found among the wheat, and that His Church would endure
tribulations. But of course, these passages mean nothing for a cherry
pickin’ Protestant who can’t make sense of the entirety of Scripture
without ignoring half of it at the instruction of Brother Billy Bob, who
of course leads a sinless life.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

5) The Didache is an all-inclusive document on early Church doctrine.
Because this document says nothing about the real presence, infant
baptism, unmarried bishops, etc., therefore those teachings are false,
or at least were not believed by the earliest Christians.

(Learner’s quotes: “The Didache, which I have mentioned in a number of
other posts, shows us how far the Orthodox Church is from early
Christianity.”
“So why do you follow your Church's innovative beliefs? It appears that
the Protestants are, at least in these aspects, much closer to the early
Church.”)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
It shows no such thing. The Didache isn't an all-comprehensive document
of the Church's practices and beliefs, nor does it claim to be such.
Furthermore, it says nothing that contradicts Orthodox teaching. It's
an edifying document, though not all-inclusive. It doesn't prohibit
infant baptism (as modern-day Baptists do) nor does it prohibit those
other items you enumerated. In the Didache, there is no Trinity, no
divinity of Christ, no crucifixion, no resurrection, no sola scriptura,
and most certainly no “once saved/always saved” theology. Which one of
those items are you ready to dump because of your loyalty to the
authority of the Didache? You want to hold this document up as a
complete laundry list of early Christian doctrines against the Orthodox
camp, while in turn excusing yourself from the same standard. Nice.

The Didache’s description of the Eucharist with various symbols isn’t
incompatible with Orthodox theology, which states that the elements are
real AND symbolic. There can be many ways of describing the bread and
wine in metaphorical language though the objects in question are the
real blood and body of Christ; much like poetry uses metaphorical
language to express the mysteries of real objects like trees and stars.

Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that
Protestants have dismissed. Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in
addition to references to the Church, unbroken continuous visible forms
of the Church which you've dismissed as nonsensical. The entire Didache
is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
Christianity which exists only in their minds. As Newman once said, the
farther back in history one studies, the lesser he remains a Protestant.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

6) Imperfection in continuity (or a human being within that continuity)
means continuity doesn't exist.

(Learner’s quotes: “However, history proves the claims of "unbroken
continuity with the past" nonsensical. Various Christian groups have
elements found in earliest Christianity, but not one is the same as the
early Church and not one is the same thing as the early Church.”
“The sad fact is that Orthodoxy, like Catholicism and Protestantism,
is an institution that has evolved over time and share little
resemblance to early Christianity.”
“The existence of heretical Bishops disproves the Orthodox Church's
claim to have the "complete and integral faith delivered to the saints
by Jesus Christ has been preserved without alteration or diminution."
“Second, it undermines the entire idea of "Apostolic succession", since,
assuming such a lineage ever existed, these guys broke it.
“Third, it undermines the very idea of tradition. For example, St.
Ignatius wrote [Smyrnaeans, 8:1,2, p. 93] that the purpose of a Bishop,
and his authority, was to guarantee the teachings of the "true Church",
thereby preventing heresy. But, when we look at Church history, it was
the Bishops that fathered these heresies! So, the Church's traditional
reasoning for this office is contradicted by the facts.”)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
This “sad fact” isn’t a fact at all. Protestant groups have embraced
doctrines in direct contradiction to what we know about the early Church
– sola scriptura wasn’t believed by early Christians because they had no
NT, let alone an agreed upon canon; “once saved/always saved” wasn’t
believed as is evidenced by Scriptural passages that say we can fall out
of grace; apostolic succession is illustrated in Scripture (in fact,
determining whether a priest was in this succession was the main method
early Christians determined his credibility as they had nothing else to
measure the trustworthiness of his teachings - the Church Fathers
regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether
Orthodox Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine; you might want to
read the Nicene Creed again and the words “In one Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church.”); the Eucharist is highly important in the early
Church, but it is not in fundie Evangelical organizations; there were
bishops and deacons in the first century – where are your bishops and
deacons today? The Didache (and Scripture) say a bishop should have one
wife. What this means is that a bishop shouldn’t be remarried if his
wife dies, and that he can’t be divorced. It does NOT mandate a bishop
to be married, nor does it prohibit the Church from requiring bishops to
be unmarried. And the Orthodox requirement for a bishop to be unmarried
is merely a discipline, not a doctrine. It violates nothing in
Scripture. This is a perfect example of what happens when someone makes
an ignorant, personal interpretation of Scripture. Your church leaders
who are married more than once are breaking this rule in Scripture.
It’s your group that has no resemblance to the early Church. In
contrast, our priests are required to follow this Biblical injunction to
not remarry.

As far as your assertion that there’s no continuity within the Orthodox
Church since the Apostles, we already know those Churches are still
around and they are Orthodox. Here’s the complete list of Ecumenical
Patriarchs since St. Andrew:
http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchs/patriarchs/
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

7) Protestants accept tradition, but not when it contradicts Scripture.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
That sounds like the Orthodox position. But we know that indeed you
accept teachings that contradict Scripture. For example, your church
leaders get married more than once. More on this matter below.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

8) Contradictions exist between Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental Traditions.

(Learner’s quote: “Second, if Tradition is the answer, then we have an
even greater problem : The Orthodox and Roman Catholics both claim
Apostolic, yet each reaches different conclusions from it - Purgatory is
one example. Even within Orthodoxy there are different or the practices
of communing/not communing infants.”)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Holy Tradition doesn't supply ALL answers. Neither does the Bible.
This has never been the position of the Orthodox Church. This is a
dubious standard you've set up, which even you don't abide by. Also,
purgatory isn't a mandatory doctrine for Catholics. Do your homework.

If you’re going to say Catholics/Orthodox/Orientals have different
doctrines, then you need to state the ones you want to discuss rather
than offer vague, unsubstantiated hints, another bad habit of yours.
I’m not aware of any Orthodox parish that forbids communing infants, and
I would challenge you to substantiate your statements with names of
parishes and priests. Nevertheless, you seem to be seriously confused
between local practices and doctrines.

You also contradict yourself by attacking the use of Tradition in these
remarks, but elsewhere you wrote that Protestants value Tradition as
long as it doesn’t contradict Scripture. Which Tradition do you value?
The ones that don’t contradict Scripture? But that ain’t so. Many
traditions don’t contradict Scripture, but they contradict each other…
how do you tell the difference? And you’ve ditched many Orthodox ones
just because you don’t like them. The OC teaches that salvation is a
process from which you can lose God’s grace through your own behavior,
with sufficient Scriptural support to back it up. This is a shared
understanding of Catholics, Orthodox, and Orientals, but you choose to
dump it and read only half of what Paul says. You’re playing games with
your soul.

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

Apparently, you believe Paul is speaking nonsense since you
sophistically argue that reference to tradition is impossible due to
competing traditions. Paul is telling you something here. It’d be wise
for you to make an effort to figure it out rather than dismiss it.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

9) No one tells me how to interpret Scripture, or what doctrines to
believe.

(Learner’s quote: “Well, whether they subscribe to what I have written
is not the issue. I prefer to think for myself and do not need to appeal
to authority to support my beliefs. Honestly, I am better off reading
the Bible for myself. If I suffer in eternity, at least it will be for
my own mistakes, rather than the silly ideas of others.”)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
I take it you reject the Nicene Creed? There’s no way you arrived at
“once saved/always saved” by reading the Scripture alone. Someone in
your current religious club put these ideas in your head along with the
hermeneutic you employ. You’ve adopted a dangerous self-delusion.

2 Peter 3:14-16 - "Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things,
be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and
consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our
beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written
to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things,
in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable
people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the
Scriptures."

Paul is telling you that being untaught leads to your own destruction.
Scripture tells us explicitly that what’s written within is hard to
understand and one must heed the teachings of the Apostles and those
that were trained by them.

Acts 8:30 - "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked the
Ethiopian eunuch; and the eunuch replied: "How can I, unless someone
guides me?"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

10) There was no consensus among Church Fathers on Scriptural exegesis.
Church Father (or Patriarch) criticizes doctrine XYZ, therefore the
doctrine wasn't held by the consensus of the Church.

(Learner’s quotes: “So how do you know what is true and false from their
works? The only argument that you can fall back on is that if the
Church has at any time believed what one, or another Father has written,
and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins,
because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes.
Also, why has the Church never produced an official list of Church
Fathers?”)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Again, you commit the fallacy of composition, in addition to exercising
repeated sophistry. For you, a brick in the wall is 3 inches tall;
therefore the wall is 3 inches tall. In reality, what one Father writes
doesn’t make it alone representative of the entirety of the Patristic
period.

I’m not sure why you care about such a list when you demean the list of
Scriptures compiled by the Church. There’s no list of Fathers because a
comprehensive list hasn’t been needed. (And spare us your multiple
Apocrypha lists; you use the same non-Apocrypha books in the canon given
you by the Church you left). It’s not an issue that divides the Church.
The writings of a Father have to be measured against Scripture and
conciliar law arrived at by consensus. Very few Fathers, if any, are
perfectly Orthodox in every word or statement. That’s why we had
councils where consensus could be worked out and unity achieved, in
accord with Christ’s command in Scripture “that they all may be one.”
We’re not perfect, but we do a helluva better job in trying to maintain
unity, as opposed to Protestants who make excuses for breaking Christ’s
commands in their 30,000+ splits and even celebrate such sinful behavior
as “diversity.”

In addition, one of the reasons we read the Fathers is for the morsels
of wisdom contained in their works. Apparently, you view them as legal
documents to scour for laws and rules. This is the difference between
mature reading and childishness.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

11) Theology of icons is a false doctrine. They dishonor Christ
because first century writer XYZ sez so.

(Learner’s quote: “Where is the proof of this? Does the Church have any
first century
icons?”)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Icons are typically made of wood, so they don’t survive well over time.
It’s to be expected that the small number of Christians in the
beginning would make finding such evidence even more difficult.
Nevertheless, you’re making the fallacious argument that absence of
evidence is evidence of absence. You ask for written accounts, it’s
provided, and then you demand a physical specimen. I’ve got a task for
you… Show me Christ’s bones. Many people write he’s a mythical
character, so show me the bones. And do you have a 3nd century BC book
of Exodus? I suppose you’ll deny it existed in that era since one isn’t
available?

The Bible is nothing more than an icon in black and white, and the cross
hanging in your Nondenom warehouse is nothing more than an unpainted
icon. It’s a symbol that communicates doctrine. Furthermore, universal
literacy is a recent luxury in human history, and icons performed a
critical role in communicating doctrines and Scripture, as well as
provided examples of humans throughout the history of the Faith who
lived pious lives and thereby teaching us that such a life is possible.
Icons act as a reinforcement of proper living.

By denying icons, you are denying the Incarnation of God in Christ. The
Hebraic peoples were given the commandment to not create graven images…
why? Because at that time God’s divinity was not manifest in physical
form. Jews then and now regard that as impossible, even an outright
sacrilege. The birth of Christ upset that long-held belief. God became
matter, therefore reconciling the physical world with the spiritual.
The Incarnation was such a revolutionary event that it indeed took
hundreds of years for man (especially Jews taught by the old Law) to
grasp its nature. It’s not at all surprising that a few early
Christians had problems accepting them, given their Jewish background.
However, over the first few centuries of the Church, this issue was
hammered out and decided upon by consensus in an Ecumenical Council,
just as the divinity of Christ had been. Now, many Protestants have
resurrected the heresy of Iconoclasm out of historical ignorance and an
unhealthy understanding of the Law in light of the Incarnation. No
doctrine says you have to maintain an icon, or kiss it or whatever, but
it’s a heresy to label such actions as idolatry.

“He is the image (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God, the firstborn
over all creation.” – Colossians 1:15

“Of old God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all.
But now God has appeared in the flesh and lived among humans, I make
an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter but I
worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and
deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I
will not cease from worshipping the matter through which my salvation
has been effected.”
- St. John of Damascus, On Icons

“We do not adore as gods the figures and images of the saints. For if it
was the mere wood of the image that we adored as God, we should likewise
adore all wood, and not, as often happens, when the form grows faint,
throw the image into the fire. And again, as long as the wood remains in
the form of a cross, I adore it on account of Christ who was crucified
upon it. When it falls to pieces, I throw them into the fire.”
- St. Leontius of Naples (d. about 650AD)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

12) Protestants don’t embrace heresies.

(Learner’s quote: “Well, at least Brother Bob's fly-by-night community
church didn't give
us Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism.)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Oh? Ever heard of oneness Pentecostalism? What about the Jehovah
Witnesses? Don’t you realize that denying the Trinity and the divinity
of Christ are heresies? Ever heard of Iconoclasm, a widely embraced
heresy in modern Protestant churches? Once more, you engage in special
pleading, ignoring heresies that you’ve unrepentantly embraced for five
hundred years in your creeds and your practices, which amount to the
entire existence of your sect.

The reality is that in the early centuries the Church had to grapple
with the mystery of Christ's nature and find the proper language and
conceptualization to describe it, so to speak. During this time, new
attacks on Christ's nature arose and it wasn't always obvious initially
that a particular thought was pernicious. Over time, the consequences
of these theologies were understood and denounced. Some members of the
Church, including clergy, embraced erroneous thinking during this
struggle, but they were eventually removed. It never took over the
whole Church, nor did it ever take over the majority. The OC has been
the most consistent in maintaining sound doctrine for two thousand
years. Once again, you find a speck of error in an individual Orthodox
and pretend this excuses the heretical forest in the Protestant back
yard, a forest which is embraced and cultivated by the majority of your
faithful. At the very least, Orthodox take heresy and proper doctrine
seriously, unlike your apparent position where maintaining consistent
doctrines that don’t contradict earlier doctrines, especially regarding
salvation, is unimportant. You make Christ’s ministry a frivolous
affair, forever lost in the past. What a sad life that makes for a
modern Protestant who doesn’t know any better. (And the reality is that
they don’t know any better; they’ve been brainwashed into thinking they
are practicing the original Christianity when the evidence is lacking,
and in many instances shows otherwise.)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[Joe Orthodox]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

Addendum:

Your fallacious claim that reference to a few heretics in this long
lineage proves the lineage is either non-existent or broken is shown
false by counter-example...

"Because Nixon was a crook, broke the Constitution, and resigned,
therefore, there's no continuity in the US government (or Presidency).
There's no such thing as a continuous lineage of US Presidents."

This is the illogical nonsense that you continuously throw out. Those
few heretics were booted out, denounced, and the office that they
occupied continued on as it had since the Apostles.

[Al]

***Damn, you're good Joe. Excellent, reasoned, and true representation of
the Orthodox position. You've blown a zillion holes in Learner's brand of
protestantism. It's too bad he was once Orthodox...now just an embittered
heretic.

Al

"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<zE07d.49012$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> Addendum:
>
> Your fallacious claim that reference to a few heretics in this long
> lineage proves the lineage is either non-existent or broken is shown
> false by counter-example...
>
> "Because Nixon was a crook, broke the Constitution, and resigned,
> therefore, there's no continuity in the US government (or Presidency).
> There's no such thing as a continuous lineage of US Presidents."
>
> This is the illogical nonsense that you continuously throw out. Those
> few heretics were booted out, denounced, and the office that they
> occupied continued on as it had since the Apostles.

This is a false analogy. No one claims that the line of Presidents
are/were guided by the Holy Spirit and there are Constitutional
mechanisms to remove those who commit crimes - as Nixon nearly was.
No sane person would claim that the U.S. government, or any other
government" is the "pillar of the truth".

The Church makes different claims concerning their Bishops. St.
Ignatius taught [Smyrnaeans, 8:1,2, p. 93] that the purpose of a

Bishop, and his authority, was to guarantee the teachings of the "true

Church". How then did these men fall into heresy? Where was the Holy
Spirit when Nestorius, Eudoxius, Macedonius, Acacius, Sergius, and
Pyrrhus were Patriarchs of Constantinople?

Clearly, the "line" [assuming that one existed in the first place] was
broken many times from the Apostles to the present time and the reason
for having Bishops in the first place [to guarantee the teachings of
the "true Church"], was an obvious failure since it was the Bishops
who led the Church into nearly every heresy.

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> 1) Reliance upon Tradition is circular reasoning, and lacks
> self-authentication.
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

> We don?t rely solely on Tradition, which you?ve been corrected on

> numerous times. You've bought into the self-authentication theory that
> Craig posted earlier.

Then what do you rely on? Whatever the Church tells you on a given
day? This effectively turns the Church into an idol which, unlike
Tradition [however one wishes to define it], can be questioned and
examined. Also, this statement flies in the face of Church Tradition,
which I will discuss in a moment.

If we are to follow Tradition, then what, aside from Tradition tells
us to follow Tradition? We will talk more about this in a moment.

> Speaking as someone with a background in mathematics, I realize you can?t
> have a self-authenticating system.

True.

> Every true system must contain premises that are unproven and

> are accepted at face value, though it?s helpful to bring in

> corroborating evidence from outside the system to support it.

Yes, these are called axioms. But the axiom of the Church [which I
will discuss further down], according to its own Tradition, is that we
must accept Tradition [both written and unwritten], so you argue in a
circle.

> Furthermore, the Holy Tradition isn?t a closed, dead system. The source
> of Truth isn?t only Tradition, but the Holy Spirit working in the Church

> through its Councils, the Scriptures, and the living Faith of its members.

But Councils and Scriptures are a part of Tradition, are they not?

Also, the work of the Holy Spirit is very difficult to see in the
Church Councils For example, Chalcedon in 451 specifically amended the
decision of the First Council of Ephesus in 431 [which had condemned
Nestorianism]and recognized the claims of Antioch theology [Nestorius'
view] and specifically rejected the central doctrine of Alexandrine
christology [Cyril's view] which had dominated the two councils of
Ephesus.

Therefore, the Patriarch Nestorius, who was condemned in 431 and 449,
would have been able to subscribe completely to the formulation of
faith laid down at Chalcedon in 451, to which Cyril, the leading
spirit at Ephesus I, could have subscribed only with open or secret
reservations, and to which Dioscorus, the leading spirit at Ephesus II
could not have subscribed at all.

Where was the Holy Spirit in all of this? Another problem is the
argument by fiat - that is, any outcome, of any dispute, could be
pinned on the Holy Spirit.

> The early Councils - particularly Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople in
> 381 - developed and articulated important issues such as the nature of
> the Trinity and the relationship between the Son and the Spirit and the
> Father - all without a uniform set of NT canon.

Perhaps. But there were Canons of Scripture prior to Nicea including
the Muratorian Canon, the Canon of Origen, the Canon Of Eusebius, and
the Canon of Cyril Of Jerusalem. Give or take a couple of books, they
were very similar. Therefore, it appears that the early Church knew
what the Scripture were. In fact, Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of
Carthage, who lived on opposite ends of the Empire, agreed upon and
defended the canonicity of the 4 Gospels.

< Protestant bashing snipped >

How, let's get back to the real issue.

The issue of Orthodox Tradition fascinates me. It appears to be the
most important, yet least supported article of Orthodox belief. I
have never encountered an Orthodox person who can delineate the bounds
of Tradition regarding what is true and what is not true.

What is the test for truth? If one uses the "accepted by the whole
Church" standard, then icons of God the Father [regardless of the
official declarations against them], are perfectly acceptable since
they were, for many centuries, accepted in all branches of Orthodoxy.
Also, the veneration of icons would have been unacceptable for the
first centuries of Christianity, because they were not "accepted by
the whole church" - as seen in the Didache.

The Orthodox Church has a grave epistemological crisis - how can the
poor average Orthodox Church member "know" what the Church teaches?
The Church gives us an undefined, and often contradictory, "Tradition"
which is supposed to be the product of the Holy Spirit.

But, if we look at the elements of Tradition, we have a lot of
problems. The problem of contradictory Church Councils was mentioned
earlier. What about icons and Saints, which are also a part of
Tradition? Did St. George slay a real dragon? What about the
dog-headed St. Christopher icons which were popular into the 20th
century - but are strangely absent today? And, who can forget the
tale of St. Anthony the Roman - who is believed to have been swept out
to sea while praying on a rock, and the rock [with St. Anthony on it]
floated all the way to Novgorod, Russia?

These stories were accepted by the Orthodox up to and into the 20th
century - and are no doubt still accepted by a few hard-core
conservatives as fact.

Now, the epistemological crisis, whether or not you want to see it,
is: if Saints, and icons representing them, are a part of Orthodox
Tradition, how can you possibly claim that this is a part of
Orthodoxy's "fullness of truth"? If one part of Tradition is
incorrect, what about the rest?

But now, the Orthodox Church comes to our rescue, implying that it can
make sense of these pious myths, Church Councils, and Church Fathers
[who the Church never officially lists] whose writtings often contain
a mixture of truth and falsehood.

In spite of these problems, the Church gives us its' nebulous concept
of Tradition. But how is this Tradition to be viewed in terms of
truth or falsehood? In other words, what does the Church really teach
about its own Tradition? Or, better, what does Tradition teach about
itself?

The not so Saintly John Chrysostom wrote: "Here it is clearly evident
that not all things were transmitted by writing, (that is, by the
apostles), but many things were handed down by tradition for which
there is no written record. But both the former and the later are
alike trustworthy, so that we also consider church tradition to be
credible.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council declared: "If any person disregards
any eccelesiastical tradition, writen or unwritten, let him be
anathema".

So, the Church effectively believe that tradition is the unwritten
word of God. This is a very remarkable claim.

Since the Church Fathers and 7th Ecumenical Council clearly order us
to follow this written and unwritten Tradition, I must ask a very
important question - what the are the exact bounds of Orthodox
Tradition?

In other words, what is an Orthodox believer, according to you or the
Church, required to believe?

For example, how does an Orthodox believer know what parts of the
Bible are to be understood literally, and what parts allegorically?
How does he or she know which Saints are authentic and which are not?
Also of those who are authentic, which events in their lives are true
and which are false?

How does an Orthodox believer know which Traditions are "true" and
which Traditions are not "true" - and why is it taught [according to
the previous quotes] that all Church Tradition is to be considered
valid?

If these matters are decided by "the Church," then to what source, to
what book does the Orthodox believer turn for a definitive statement?
Or does one simply "turn off their mind, relax and float downstream"?

My position is that there is no definitive statement concerning
Tradition. Beyond the Creed and the declarations of the Seven
Ecumenical councils, there is
nothing that can be taken as a definitive truth in Orthodoxy. All
other Tradition simple serves the needs of the moment for the Church.

If you disagree with this assessment, then how do you account for the
anathematization by the 7th ecumenical council of those who refuse to
accept "any ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten"?

Joe, I would like you, or someone else, to finally state exactly what
are the boundaries of truth in Tradition, and how the ordinary
Orthodox believer is to find that boundary. The only answer that
comes to my mind is that the average Orthodox is simply to trust the
Church, effectively turning the Church into an idol which must never
be questioned.

Orthodox Tradition is a mirage that fades as one begins to examine it
- the closer one approaches it, the more it is not there.

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> 3a) The guys who wrote the Bible belonged to a Church that no longer

> exists, which has no connection to the Orthodox Church.

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> I?ve got news for you, O? Learned One? those Churches in Galatia and

> Corinth and Thessalonica still exist today! And they are Orthodox
> Churches under the Greek jurisdiction!

Yes, and there is an Episcopal Church down the street that was built
in the 1700's. Are they the really same Church today in terms of
belief and practice, as when the Church was founded?

> You're trying to argue that because an organic organization, the Church, grew

> and clarified the nature of Christ and His Church?s doctrines through

> councils over the period of centuries that it's not the same organization.

But this is not the case. Historains have recognized, since the time
of Professor Bauer [who Al sited] that the terms "Orthodoxy" and
"Heresy" to not accurately represent the circumstances of the first
centuries of Christianity. During this time, there was far more
diversity in belief than in later periods, and perhaps even more
diversity than exists today. Many people would have been expelled from
the church after the Nicene Council, who in earlier times would have
peacefully worshipped together with those who disagreed since.

The term "Orthodoxy," is an inadequate one. It is currently used to
define the group which enforced its beliefs on others in later times -
effectivel pushing its rivals out of the picture. Orthodoxy, after
winning the political struggle in Byzantium, then attempted to justify
its doctrines and beliefs by refering to earlier writers who held
positions which, while if not entirely compatible with theirs, could
be interpreted as kind of close.

The earlier Church Fathers which could be used in such a way, were are
"Proto-Orthodox." The Church Fatherswho could not be so used in for
the Church's purposes of the moment were relegated to the category of
"Heresy," which is meaningful only in regard to historical
development, and consequently has nothing to do with "purity" or
"impurity" of doctrine. The Church never really made an official list
of Church Fathers because, even among those whom the Church accepts,
there is a mixture of "truth" and "falsehoods" in their works. So the
Church "cherry picks" what it wants from these documents.

> If that fallacious reasoning holds, then we have to say the Constitution and
> the US didn't exist in 1790.

The Constitution is different today. There have been numerous
Amendments added, which would probably shock those who wrote the
original document. The interpretation of the Constitution has also
changed - such as the "right" of abortion being "found" in the 4th
Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

> I don?t know your sources for this reasoning, but those Churches mentioned in

> the NT still exist today, they expanded into other lands such as Russia and
> the USA, and remain in the Orthodox Church at this moment.

But are they the same 2000 years ago as today? What about the Church
in Rome, which was also mentioned? I think that you are comparing
apples to grapes.

The first century Didache shows us how far the Orthodox Church is from
these early Churches. In the Didache there is no baptism of infants,
no veneration of Mary or the saints, no icons, no "real presence", and
Bishops were married men who were elected by their congregations.

> You choose to demean the use of the word

> ?Church? in Scripture, solely because you know in your heart that if

> such a Church as, say Corinth, was founded by Paul and it has continued
> to exist up to today, then the whole Protestant restoration project is a

> Lie. So you?re left with taking your felt tip marker and crossing out
> the inconvenient passages.

Well, the Bible also mentions the nation of Israel. Is modern Israel
the same as ancient Israel? Do they have the same form of government?
Does the average Israeli have the same religious beliefs as the
Israelites of 2000 years ago? If so, do they conduct sacrifices?

> You seem to not understand Christ?s words that tares will be found among

> the wheat and His Church would be subjected to tribulations, and you
> fallaciously conclude that a sinful individual in the Church means the

> Church doesn?t exist, therefore making the Scriptures a book of lies

> when it tells us the Church is the pillar of Truth.

No, that is not my position.

> Christ orders you to listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he
> refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to
> hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

And why do you assume, aside from simple arrogance, that this refers
to your Church and not others?

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> 3b) The Church didn't exist when the Bible was wrote.

> (Learner?s quote: ?First, most of the Bible [the OT - whose Canon the
> Orthodox do not agree upon] was written long before there was a Church.?)

>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> This is the most ridiculous of your assertions.

Really? The Church pre-existed the Old Testament?!?!?

> Refer back to my answer in 3b. Within the NT, Paul and the other Apostles
> make reference to physical Churches by names which still exist today. They
> founded these Churches and taught the Christians there.

Are they really the same Chruches in terms of belief and doctrine?

> These Churches as a whole make up the Church, visible and invisible (?The
> Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? - 1 Tim 3:15).

Well, if these Churches were "the pillar and foundation of the truth"
then why did Paul have to write so many letters correcting their false
beliefs and practices? Where was the "true Church"? Was it in
Galacia or in Corinth?

> It's impossible to write about something that hasn't been created yet. I
> guess in your mind, Paul was a madman writing a fairy tale about the world
> around him.

Once again, the Churches that Paul wrote to are very different than
what the Orthodox Church is, and believes, today.

> Furthermore, your comments here contradict your quoted words in key
> point 3a.
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 4) A few bad people (or people teaching errors) in an organization
> invalidate the legitimacy of the organization and its doctrines.

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

> You're committing the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Your reasoning
> is proven wrong by counter-examples...

> ?Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Baptist Church can't be Christ's
> Church.?

Jim Baker was a member of the Assemblies of God. Second, Jim Baker
was a profiteer who never claimed to be the true Church. Jim Baker
did not have the economic and military support of the U.S. government
to enforce his edicts - as the Orthodox Churches of Byzantium and
Russia had. In fact, the modern Russian Orthodox Church owns a slice
of the oil monopoly and once controlled the cigarette monopoly. The
Russian government defends and supports the Russian Orthodox Church's
corruption, the American government threw Jim Baker in jail. Bad
analogy!

> ?Baptists sold slaves. An institution that buys and sells humans,

> foments racism against blacks, and lynches minorities can't be Christ's

> Church. I certainly can?t follow such a person?s teachings on sola
> scriptura.?

Yes, there were Baptists who sold slaves. As did Catholics,
Anglicans, Methodists, and [since there was a Greek community in New
Orleans] possibly even an Orthodox Catholic, or two.

However, did the Baptist Church [or any other Church], as an
institution, own slaves and oppose their emanicipation? The Southern
Baptists have worked hard for racial reconciliation - admitting the
sins of the past leaders.

The sad fact is that the Russian Orthodox Church owned land and Serfs.
Is this something that the "pillar and foundation of the truth"
should do? The Russian Orthodox Church systematically persecuted the
Old Believers. Is this the work of Christ's Church? The Russian
Orthodox Church, for many decades, fomented pogroms and violence
against the Jews of Russia. Is this something that the "pillar and
foundation of the truth" should do?

Did you know that the Russian Orthodox Church opposed the emancipation
of the Serfs up to the middle 1800's? Did you ever wonder why so many
people abandoned the Church after the Revolution, and why so few
regularly attend Liturgy in modern Russia, where the Church is no
longer persecuted? One could claim that the Russian Orthodox Church
was persecuted - and it was, however, the Catholics of Lithuania and
the Protestants of Latvia and Estonia did not abandon their Churches
in such high numbers while facing similar persecution.

Another thing that I find amazing, is that the Russian Church and
society could not marshall the will and resources to translate and
make available the entire Bible centuries, but it took only 4 years
for Russians to translate the grossly anti-Semitic "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion" into Russian [in 1872]and to make it available across
the country.

In fact, to moderns times, the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia sells
books containing excerpts of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
(Source:http://www.beliefnet.com/story/97/story_9754_1.html)

I am not talking about the sins or shortcomings of individuals being
imputed to a larger organization. I am talking about an institution
that is, and has been, rotten to its core for centuries.

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> 5) The Didache is an all-inclusive document on early Church doctrine.

> Because this document says nothing about the real presence, infant
> baptism, unmarried bishops, etc., therefore those teachings are false,
> or at least were not believed by the earliest Christians.
>

> (Learner?s quotes: ?The Didache, which I have mentioned in a number of

> other posts, shows us how far the Orthodox Church is from early

> Christianity.?
> ?So why do you follow your Church's innovative beliefs? It appears that

> the Protestants are, at least in these aspects, much closer to the early

> Church.?)

>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> It shows no such thing. The Didache isn't an all-comprehensive document
> of the Church's practices and beliefs, nor does it claim to be such.

I never said that it did.

> Furthermore, it says nothing that contradicts Orthodox teaching.

Wrong.

There is absolutely no mention in the Didache of the bread and wine
becoming the "real presence" of the body and blood of Jesus. Also,
unlike the little bit of bread and drop of wine of the modern Orthodox
Church, the Church of the Didache had Communion as a meal in which
believers were "filled".

According to the Didache, Bishops were married men elected by the
congregation.

According to the Didache - which prescribed worship, there was no
mention of the veneration of Mary or the saints and no icons.

> It's an edifying document, though not all-inclusive. It doesn't prohibit
> infant baptism (as modern-day Baptists do) nor does it prohibit those
> other items you enumerated.

Yes, it does prohibit infant baptism!

"But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and
whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or
two days before.."

How many infants would last 24-48 hours without food?

> In the Didache, there is no Trinity,

Wrong.

"And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these
things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit, in living water."

>no divinity of Christ,

"Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God
(Son) of David!"

> no crucifixion, no resurrection, no sola scriptura,

> and most certainly no ?once saved/always saved? theology. Which one of

> those items are you ready to dump because of your loyalty to the
> authority of the Didache? You want to hold this document up as a
> complete laundry list of early Christian doctrines against the Orthodox
> camp, while in turn excusing yourself from the same standard. Nice.

The Didache affects my view of history because it shows what was, and
what was not present in the early Church.

> The Didache?s description of the Eucharist with various symbols isn?t

> incompatible with Orthodox theology, which states that the elements are
> real AND symbolic. There can be many ways of describing the bread and
> wine in metaphorical language though the objects in question are the
> real blood and body of Christ; much like poetry uses metaphorical
> language to express the mysteries of real objects like trees and stars.

Yes, it is very incompatible with Orthodox theology. Look at the
text:

9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy
vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus
Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

It makes no sense to interpret this as the blood of Jesus.

That this is not the blood of Christ is made even more clear by the
lack of parallelism that would create with the words relating to the
bread:

9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for
the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through
Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and
after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be
gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for
thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

There is nothing context that even eludes to the body of Jesus. The
Didache compares the grains that grew on the hillsides and have come
together to form bread to the church being gathered from all over the
earth into the kingdom of God in an apocalyptic sense.

This also show that the "vine of David" cannot be the blood of Jesus.
It would seems much more likely that the "vine" represents the Church.

There is no clear or direct mention of the body and blood of Jesus, or
of a sacrifice, which is extremely remarkable in view of the clarity
and force of the sacrificial understanding of the eucharist expressed
in modern Orthodoxy.

Also, there are no words of institution, no hint of "real presence,"
no mention of sacrifice.

The Didache's view of the Eucharist is totally incompatible with
Orthodox theology.

> Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that
> Protestants have dismissed. Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in
> addition to references to the Church, unbroken continuous visible forms
> of the Church which you've dismissed as nonsensical.

Yes, and the Bishops are married and elected by the congregation. How
about yours? The Church of the Didache also had Prophets and
Apostles. Why does modern Orthodoxy lack these offices?

The whole point of the Didache was to provide a summary of what was
proper teachings, it is not intended to refute other teachings. It is
interesting that the The Didache warns against "false prophets," but
does not really go into detail except in warning against Prophets who
misuse their vocation. This raises yet another problem for Orthodoxy,
since in the early Church, Prophets had a major role in the church.

Why, in later Orthodoxy, was the role of Prophet eliminated? What
about the office of Apostles? It also interesting to note the absence
of a Priest in the celebration of the Didache Eucharist!

So, before running to take another swing at the Protestants, you might
want to measure your Church according to the teachings and practices
of the early Church!

> The entire Didache
> is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
> you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
> Christianity which exists only in their minds.

The is no way one can reach this conculsion after reading the Didache.

> As Newman once said, the farther back in history one studies, the lesser he
> remains a Protestant.

Sure, Christianity itself is, relative to all of human history, a new
development. So, I guess the further back we go, the more Pagan we
become!
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> 6) Imperfection in continuity (or a human being within that continuity)

> means continuity doesn't exist.

<snip>

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> This ?sad fact? isn?t a fact at all. Protestant groups have embraced

> doctrines in direct contradiction to what we know about the early Church

> ? sola scriptura wasn?t believed by early Christians because they had no
> NT, let alone an agreed upon canon; ?once saved/always saved? wasn?t

> believed as is evidenced by Scriptural passages that say we can fall out
> of grace;

The same can be said of any Church, including Orthodoxy. All Churches
are historical developments.

The major mistake of Orthodoxy is to read later opinions back into
earlier times. We know that icons were a late development in the
Church and that the structure of church governance varied and changes
over time. Early Christianity was not monolithic in belief. In fact,
it appears to have been much more tolerant of variations of opinion
than the post Nicene church.

> apostolic succession is illustrated in Scripture....

Hmm, if "apostolic succession" is so critical, why didn't Jesus or
Paul explicitly require it? The one passage cited by proponents of
Apostolic succession is Matt. 16:18 - on which Catholics and Orthodox
differ greatly! Additionally, what good is Apostolic succession? The
Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics all claim to have it and each
has teachings that contradict the others. Which is correct?

Second, a Bishop of the first century Church was very different from
what we have today. We can clearly see the evolution of Church
government in Pauls letters.

Paul recognized "Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers" then, workers of
miracles, also those having gifts of healing (1 Corinthians 12:28).
There is no office of Bishop and certainly no succession, at to this
point in history.

In Ephesians 4:11 Paul inserts "Evangelists and Pastors" after
Prophets and before Teachers. A slightly different revision is made in
Romans 12:6-7, where Diakonia is placed before teaching as one of the
"gifts differing" (kharismata).

The Apostles were the founders of the Church. They appointed Prophets
and Teachers to care for the growing Church. So, Apostles, Prophets
and Teachers were the basic foundation of Paul's organization of the
Church.

So when do we see a "Bishop"? In 1 Timothy 3:1-2 , Acts 20:28, and in
Titus 1:7 there is mention of a Bishop. However, this is not a
separate "office", but is one of the Church's "Prebyteroi" or elders.
These men eventually took over the function of the Prophets and fought
against the Gnostic heresy, which was the result of the earlier errant
"Prophets" in the Church. The elders acted to regulate doctrine
rather than relying on the free inspiration of Prophets. The earlier
"Apostles, Prophets and Teachers" morphed into "a Herald, an Apostle,
and a Teacher" by the time we get to 2 Timothy 1:11.

The institution of "regulatory elders" became widespread by the 2nd
century, while, during the same time, the charismatic "offices"
declined.

Ignatius provides early evidence of a major change in the earlier
practices and Church government. He claimed that the office of Bishop
as a divine right connected with apostolic teaching. This ultimately
laid the foundation for the incorrect tradition of the "apostolic
succession" of bishops.

In addition, I am not sure why "apostolic succession" is so important.
It did not prevent the many heresies in the Eastern Church [many of
which were taught by those who claimed "apostolic succession"] nor
did it head off competing Popes and anti-Popes of the 1400's in the
Latin Church.

Another problem for the "true believerism" of Orthodoxy is Mark 9:38
(also Luke 9:50):

"And John answered Him, saying, "Master, we saw one casting out devils
in Thy name, but he followeth us not, so we forbad him because he
followeth not us. But Jesus said, "Forbid him not, for there is no
man who shall do a miracle in My name that can lightly speak evil of
Me. For he that is not against us is on our side."

Apparently, the apostles had not ordained/authorized this guy, but
Jesus did not stop him - in spite of the complaints of the Apostles.

> Apostolic Church.?); the Eucharist is highly important in the early

> Church, but it is not in fundie Evangelical organizations; there were

> bishops and deacons in the first century ? where are your bishops and
> deacons today?

Where are your Prophets, Teachers, and Apostles? What about "workers
of miracles" and "those having gifts of healing"?

> The Didache (and Scripture) say a bishop should have one

> wife. What this means is that a bishop shouldn?t be remarried if his
> wife dies, and that he can?t be divorced. It does NOT mandate a bishop

> to be married, nor does it prohibit the Church from requiring bishops to
> be unmarried. And the Orthodox requirement for a bishop to be unmarried
> is merely a discipline, not a doctrine. It violates nothing in
> Scripture.

So, when Paul says in Titus 1:6 says that a Bishop must be the husband
of one wife, what he is *really* saying is that a Bishop must be the
husband of no wife? Why does you Church feel it necessary to correct
Paul?

> This is a perfect example of what happens when someone makes
> an ignorant, personal interpretation of Scripture.

Well, your blind acceptance of the teachings of your idol [the Church]
are even worse. Paul said what he said, and I will go with Paul!

> Your church leaders who are married more than once are breaking this rule in

> Scripture. It?s your group that has no resemblance to the early Church. In

> contrast, our priests are required to follow this Biblical injunction to
> not remarry.

Really? It is nice to know that divorce is not a problem in Orthodoxy
- maybe I should rejoin the Church.

But then again, since you want to shift to this subject, Jesus spoke
out against divorce and re-marriage [Mark 10:12]. However, the
Orthodox Church says that a maximum of three "valid marriages are
permitted by the Church", in many cases the reasons for the divorce,
at least what I have seen, were un-Biblical. So, who should I believe,
the Son of God, or the Orthodox Church?

> As far as your assertion that there?s no continuity within the Orthodox

> Church since the Apostles, we already know those Churches are still

> around and they are Orthodox. Here?s the complete list of Ecumenical

> Patriarchs since St. Andrew:
> http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchs/patriarchs/

But were these Churches the same in belief and practice 2000 years
ago? The Bible mentions Lebanon in Deuteronomy 1. Is that the same
Lebanon that exists today?

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> To "work out" your salvation with fear and trembling is pure Orthodoxy,

> not a 30 second sinner's-prayer-theology.

And it is a totally wrong interpretation of the passage. The context
of this is:

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my
presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your
salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to
will and to act according to his good purpose."

The use of the term "dear friends" [agapetos] implies that Paul was
addressing people who were already saved. God does call us to do
good, but these works are not terms of our salvation - they are the
fruit of salvation which God motivates and enables us to do.

Also, the 30 second prayer worked for the thief on the cross. Did it
not?

> The Scriptural passages I've provided require an explanation from someone who
> sustains the idea that salvation is gained once and for all at a singular
> moment in this life and can never be lost.

Paul tells us in Romans 10:

"For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses
with his lips and so is saved."

Justification means that one is made righteous while salvation means
that one is granted eternal life, so yes, it happens in a singular
moment.

Instead of going through the motions set forth by the Orthodox Church,
and never really knowing if you are saved, Paul tells us in Romans 10,
that first, the word of faith is preached. Second, the hearer believes
in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead (justification).
Third, the hearer confesses with his lips that Jesus is Lord
(salvation). So we see from the above that two "events" occur:
justification and salvation.

The believer's faith is completed as he, or she, moves from
justification to salvation. It is the Holy Spirit within who leads the
individual to complete his faith. It is not a human work. As the
scripture says, "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy
Spirit." (1 Cor 12:3) The entire process is totally apart from human
works of any kind, "For by grace you have been saved through faith;
and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God --- not because
of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8,9)

> I suspect you'll say these people were never
> saved in the first place, in which case

Yes I would, based on the above.

> it makes the sinner's prayer and other simplistic devices rather trivial.

It depends on the state of the person reciting it. Some people say
things that they do not really believe.

> If I can't know for certain "when" I'm saved, and "what" exactly I must do to
> become saved, then "once saved/always saved" is a misleading marketing trick
> by fundie evangelicals, and an extremely dangerous one at that.

This statement is based on the false assumption that you cannot know
if you are saved.

If I buy into the Orthodox line that no one can know if he or she is
saved, then I have another question for you. How can the Orthodox
Church teach that no human can know whether or not he/she is
saved/going to heaven or hell - much less know another person's fate -
while humans in the very same Church [Bishops and Synods] can
"declare" that certain people are in heaven and
that they can intercede on our behalf?

Simply put, how do Orthodox leaders "know" what the same organization
says cannot be known?
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> 9) No one tells me how to interpret Scripture, or what doctrines to
> believe.
>
> (Learner?s quote: ?Well, whether they subscribe to what I have written

> is not the issue. I prefer to think for myself and do not need to appeal
> to authority to support my beliefs. Honestly, I am better off reading
> the Bible for myself. If I suffer in eternity, at least it will be for

> my own mistakes, rather than the silly ideas of others.?)

>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> I take it you reject the Nicene Creed?

No.

> There?s no way you arrived at ?once saved/always saved? by reading the
> Scripture alone.

And there is no way that you can arrive at the making and veneration
of icons, or celebate Bishops by reading either Scripture or the early
writtings of the Church.

> Paul is telling you that being untaught leads to your own destruction.

> Scripture tells us explicitly that what?s written within is hard to

> understand and one must heed the teachings of the Apostles and those
> that were trained by them.

I agree with Paul. However, your Church has wandered so far from the
teachings of Paul and the early Church that I no longer view Orthodoxy
as a credible teacher of Scripture.

> Acts 8:30 - "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked the
> Ethiopian eunuch; and the eunuch replied: "How can I, unless someone
> guides me?"

This guy knew the OT prophecy. However, the Eunuch did not have the
Gospels, he only knew of the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah. We
have the text today. Why is my local Priest a better interpreter of
the Scripture than anyone else? I have had several atheist professors
who know more about the Scriptures [in the original languages] than
any Priest that I have ever met, yet I would rather read the
Scriptures for myself.

Afterall, if there is a day of judgement, neither my professors nor my
Priest will be able to help me. If I must suffer for an error, I
would rather suffer for my errors instead of the errors of others.

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<zE07d.49012$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>Addendum:
>>
>>Your fallacious claim that reference to a few heretics in this long
>>lineage proves the lineage is either non-existent or broken is shown
>>false by counter-example...
>>
>>"Because Nixon was a crook, broke the Constitution, and resigned,
>>therefore, there's no continuity in the US government (or Presidency).
>>There's no such thing as a continuous lineage of US Presidents."
>>
>>This is the illogical nonsense that you continuously throw out. Those
>>few heretics were booted out, denounced, and the office that they
>>occupied continued on as it had since the Apostles.
>
>
>
> This is a false analogy. No one claims that the line of Presidents
> are/were guided by the Holy Spirit and there are Constitutional
> mechanisms to remove those who commit crimes - as Nixon nearly was.
> No sane person would claim that the U.S. government, or any other
> government" is the "pillar of the truth".

*~*~*
You're misrepresenting the counter-example. The President is the top
law enforcer of the land, and his power is derived from the will of the
people. This is analogous to a Patriarch's role in enforcing 'right'
doctrine in the Church, and his power is given by the Holy Spirit. To
say that a particular President failed to follow the will of the people
in a specific instance doesn't invalidate that this office is sustained
by the people's will. What your reasoning would say is that because
Nixon or Clinton broke the law, the idea that the President is the
pillar of law enforcement and that there has been an unbroken succession
of Presidents since George Washington is "nonsensical." Your reasoning
resorts to sophistry in claiming that because a particular President
broke the law, or didn't follow the will of the people, then the office
of the President and the succession of holders of that office doesn't
exist. This is what's truly nonsensical.
*~*~*

> The Church makes different claims concerning their Bishops. St.
> Ignatius taught [Smyrnaeans, 8:1,2, p. 93] that the purpose of a
> Bishop, and his authority, was to guarantee the teachings of the "true
> Church". How then did these men fall into heresy? Where was the Holy
> Spirit when Nestorius, Eudoxius, Macedonius, Acacius, Sergius, and
> Pyrrhus were Patriarchs of Constantinople?

*~*~*
St. Ignatius never said bishops are perfect. The purpose of the
Presidency is to guarantee the strict enforcement of the law of the
land. Those few bishops fell into heresy for the same reason a few
Presidents disobeyed the laws they're sworn to uphold - they are fallen
human beings who can be led astray through pride and self-delusion.
This doesn't invalidate the office of the President or its unbroken
succession. And as I've already noted, the early Church was still in a
state of trying to find the right doctrines to describe the nature of
Christ, in words consistent with Scripture and the teachings handed down
from the Apostles. Those bishops you enumerate lived during this time
frame, and its not at all surprising that a few individuals struggled
with ideas that 1500 years later are obvious heresies, much like today
it is much more obvious to us that slavery was an egregious concept than
it was for 18th century farmers in Georgia, even though at that time
they possessed the same general principles of "equality of all men" as
we do.
*~*~*

> Clearly, the "line" [assuming that one existed in the first place] was
> broken many times from the Apostles to the present time and the reason
> for having Bishops in the first place [to guarantee the teachings of
> the "true Church"], was an obvious failure since it was the Bishops
> who led the Church into nearly every heresy.
>
> Learner

*~*~*
Your generous use of the words "clearly" and "obvious" don't reverse the
underlying fallaciousness in your reasoning. The counter-example
demonstrates such. The apostolic office has continued since the time of
the Apostles and every Orthodox bishop today can refer to the lineage
chart and trace the bishops holding the office, by name, all the way
back to 33A.D. You demand lists, and the list of successions is
available to you. Now you boldly assert it doesn't exist. The
apostolic succession has continued unbroken, to this day, and not even
well-schooled, professional Protestant scholars such as Philip Schaff,
J.N.D. Kelly, and former Protestant Jaroslav Pelikan attempt the
ludicrous sophistry you're pulling.

J.N.D. Kelly writes (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 191; section: "The
Beginnings of Ecclesiology"):

"What these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the
empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the
distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an
invisible Church... For the fuller development of the theory of the
invisible, pre-existent Church we have to look to Valentinian Gnosticism. "

What Protestants have resurrected with their invisible Church theory is
a form of Gnostic heresy. It's the only way you can make *partial*
sense of NT references to the Church.

Philip Schaff writes (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II):
"The fathers [of the ante-Nicene period A.D. 100-325] all saw in the
church, though with different degrees of clearness, a divine,
supernatural order of things, in a certain sense the continuation of the
life of Christ on earth, the temple of the Holy Spirit, the sole
repository of the powers of divine life, the possessor and interpreter
of the Holy Scriptures, the mother of all the faithful.

She is catholic, this is complete, and alone true, in distinction from
all parties and sects. Catholicity, strictly taken, includes the three
marks of universality, unity, and exclusiveness, and is an essential
property of the church as the body and organ of Christ, who is, in fact,
the only Redeemer for all men.

Equally inseparable from her is the predicate of apostolicity, that is,
the historical continuity or unbroken succession, which reaches back
through the bishops to the apostles, from the apostles to Christ, and
from Christ to God.

In view of the fathers, every theoretical departure from this empirical,
tangible, catholic church is heresy, that is, arbitrary, subjective,
ever changing human opinion; every practical departure, all disobedience
to her rules is schism, or dismemberment of the body of Christ; either
is rebellion against divine authority, and a heinous, if not the most
heinous, sin. No heresy can reach the conception of the church, or
rightly claim any one of her predicates; it forms at best a sect or
party, and consequently falls within the province and the fate of human
and perishing things, while the church is divine and indestructible.
...this is without doubt the view of the ante-Nicene fathers."

Baptist theologian Augustus Strong criticized (Systematic Theology,
1907, reprinted 1967, p.915) John Calvin for his "objection to the
identity of the presbyter and the bishop . . . on the ground of 1 Tim
5:17". He also writes: "Calvin was a natural aristocrat, not a man of
the people like Luther . . . He believed in authority and loved to
exercise it. He could easily have been a despot . . . He resolved church
discipline into police control. He confessed that the eldership was an
expedient to which he was driven by circumstances, though after creating
it he naturally enough endeavored to procure Scriptural proof in its favor."

As former Protestant-turned Orthodox convert Jaroslav Pelikan wrote:

"Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the
second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies
over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the 16th century, for
'in the ante-Nicene Church . . . there was no notion of sola Scriptura,
but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.' "

There was no sola scripture, nor did the OC ever subscribe to sola
tradition as you erroneously assert. The living Faith within the
visible Church was the focal point of Christian life, and it remains so
today.
*~*~*

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> 8) Contradictions exist between Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental Traditions.
>

> (Learner?s quote: ?Second, if Tradition is the answer, then we have an

> even greater problem : The Orthodox and Roman Catholics both claim
> Apostolic, yet each reaches different conclusions from it - Purgatory is
> one example. Even within Orthodoxy there are different or the practices

> of communing/not communing infants.?)

>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Holy Tradition doesn't supply ALL answers. Neither does the Bible.

Then what does supply these answers? If the Bible and Traditions do
not supply all of the answers, then where does the Church derive its
doctrines on issues that fall into this grey area? Could it be from
the "private interpretations" of whoever is in power in the Church?

> This has never been the position of the Orthodox Church. This is a
> dubious standard you've set up, which even you don't abide by. Also,
> purgatory isn't a mandatory doctrine for Catholics. Do your homework.

> If you?re going to say Catholics/Orthodox/Orientals have different

> doctrines, then you need to state the ones you want to discuss rather
> than offer vague, unsubstantiated hints, another bad habit of yours.

Unwritten tradition was inadequate, even in the earliest days of
Christianity. For example, in 190-192 A.D., Pope Victor demanded that
the Eastern Churches accept the Roman practice of celebrating Easter.
Pope Victor based his demand on the authority of the apostles Peter
and Paul. He was answered by one of the senior bishops of the East
[Polycrates of Ephesus], who referred in turn to a tradition that had
reached him directly from the Apostles.

So who, based on very early Tradition, was correct?

Alexander Schmemann has some interesting things to say about the
differences in the development of Tradition ["The Historical Road of
Eastern Orthodoxy", pages 84-85]:

"Thus a Roman tradition was gradually allowed to develop. When East
and West later came to face it, it was too late; for Rome the
tradition was already sanctified by antiquity and interpreted as
true."

> I?m not aware of any Orthodox parish that forbids communing infants, and

> I would challenge you to substantiate your statements with names of
> parishes and priests. Nevertheless, you seem to be seriously confused
> between local practices and doctrines.

Forbid may be a strong term. However, some Orthodox Churches have
first Holy Communion, notably the Carpatho-Russians. Others, such as
most OCA Churches, give infants wine only until they are a few months
old [to reduce the choking hazard] and then give bread as well. Still
others [ie the Ukrainians] give only wine to the age of seven and then
gives the bread after the child's First Confession. Each cites
Tradition, so who is right and who is wrong - assuming they are using
the same Tradition?

Now, I am sure that you will brush this off as a "local practice", or
a tradition with a small "t". However we are discussing an issue
concerning a Sacrament. In other words, if Sacramental grace is
imparted by the Eucharist to an infant, are the Carpatho-Russian
Orthodox and the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches guilty of depriving
infants of Sacramental grace? Can they be a part of the "true Church"
if they do this?

Or, if we believe that one must have a basic understanding of the
Eucharist before one partakes of it - as the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox
and [to a lesser extent] the Ukrainian Orthodox apparently do, are
Churches who give infants Communion then profaning the Sacrament?
Would a Church which profanes a Sacrament be a part of the "true
Church"?

> You also contradict yourself by attacking the use of Tradition in these
> remarks, but elsewhere you wrote that Protestants value Tradition as

> long as it doesn?t contradict Scripture. Which Tradition do you value?
> The ones that don?t contradict Scripture?

No contradiction at all. I can easily accept the portions of the
Church Councils which agree with Scripture, or the works of the
Fathers on the Bible. I also value those traditions which contradict
Scripture since, from an historical perspective, we can trace the
Church's deviation from early Christianity.

> But that ain?t so. Many traditions don?t contradict Scripture, but they
> contradict each other? how do you tell the difference?

I would use reason and good sense. In all reality, they probably don't
matter.

> ..... The OC teaches that salvation is a
> process from which you can lose God?s grace through your own behavior,

> with sufficient Scriptural support to back it up. This is a shared
> understanding of Catholics, Orthodox, and Orientals, but you choose to

> dump it and read only half of what Paul says. You?re playing games with
> your soul.

The OC is wrong. Paul's definition of salvation has three aspects:
Justification, Sanctification, and then Glorification. Salvation
occurs at the time of Justification, and it is through faith.

The Orthodox begin with Baptism, then through a process of Deification
[similar to the Protestant concept of Sanctification], and then to
Glorification. In Orthodoxy, salvation occurs at the time of
Glorification - or at the end of a process.

The Orthodox Church's view of salvation is a huge deivergence from
Biblical teachings going back to the Old Testament. Salvation comes
through the forgiveness of sins and the forgiveness of sins comes
through vicarious atonement and vicarious atonement comes through the
shedding of innocent blood. This is a Biblical theme from the
beginning of the OT to Paul's Epistles.

> 2 Thess. 2:15 states, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the
> traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter
> from us."
>
> Apparently, you believe Paul is speaking nonsense since you
> sophistically argue that reference to tradition is impossible due to

> competing traditions. Paul is telling you something here. It?d be wise

> for you to make an effort to figure it out rather than dismiss it.

This is the old "the Bible also speaks about unwritten Traditions of
the Apostles" argument. This doesn't work because it cannot be proven
that these Apostolic Traditions are indeed identical to what Eastern
Orthodox Church [or the Roman Catholics for that matter] claims to be
these very Traditions.

What about the Traditions concerning Mary's "Presentation" in the
Temple? This "feast", as well as others, became "orthodox" in the 6th
century A.D., and even the OCA's website admits this!

So, is this a part of the "tradition" which Paul is discussing?

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> 11) Theology of icons is a false doctrine. They dishonor Christ

> because first century writer XYZ sez so.
>

> (Learner?s quote: ?Where is the proof of this? Does the Church have any
> first century
> icons??)
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Icons are typically made of wood, so they don?t survive well over time.
> It?s to be expected that the small number of Christians in the

> beginning would make finding such evidence even more difficult.

But we have artifacts from many ancient civilizations which survived
an even longer period! If icons were such an important part of
Orthodoxy, then why are there no ancient icons? In spite of times of
persecution, there were early Christians who owned houses, slaves, and
traveled to different countries. Some early Christians had signet
rings and other jewelry, but for some reason these same people could
not own even the simplest of icons? Why is it that none of these
people some much as wrote a few lines mentioning the making, or use of
icons in their texts?

> Nevertheless, you?re making the fallacious argument that absence of
> evidence is evidence of absence. You ask for written accounts, it?s

> provided, and then you demand a physical specimen.

Where is the written evidence? The account of the Edessa cloth, a
myth that evolved over time?

> I?ve got a task for
> you? Show me Christ?s bones. Many people write he?s a mythical

> character, so show me the bones. And do you have a 3nd century BC book

> of Exodus? I suppose you?ll deny it existed in that era since one isn?t
> available?

Bad analogy. If icons were as important to the early Church, as they
are to the Orthodox today, we would find at least one, wouldn't you
think?

> The Bible is nothing more than an icon in black and white, and the cross
> hanging in your Nondenom warehouse is nothing more than an unpainted

> icon. It?s a symbol that communicates doctrine.

Both the Bible and symbols are uninterpreted facts. We give them
meaning.

> Furthermore, universal
> literacy is a recent luxury in human history, and icons performed a
> critical role in communicating doctrines and Scripture, as well as
> provided examples of humans throughout the history of the Faith who
> lived pious lives and thereby teaching us that such a life is possible.

Perhaps, but that does not defend the claim that they existed in the
early Church.

> Icons act as a reinforcement of proper living.

How?

> By denying icons, you are denying the Incarnation of God in Christ.

Nonsense! One could also say that by not bowing to a Vishnu statue,
you also deny the incarnation of God.

> The Hebraic peoples were given the commandment to not create graven images?
> why? Because at that time God?s divinity was not manifest in physical
> form.

Really, who wrestled with Jacob?

> No doctrine says you have to maintain an icon, or kiss it or whatever, but

> it?s a heresy to label such actions as idolatry.

Really? You should study your religion a bit more closely.

"We salute the venerable images. We anathematize those who do not do
so.
Anathema to those who presume to apply to the venerable images the
things said in Holy Scripture of idols. Anathema to those who do not
salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the
sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say Christians turn to the
sacred images as to gods."

Do your homework.

No one in the NT or in earliest Christianity venerated icons. So by
declaring those who do not anathema, Orthodoxy irrevocably cut itself
apart from early Christianity, and made itself something very
different. This is true with other doctrines too, but in this one
where the difference is very obvious.

> ?He is the image (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God, the firstborn
> over all creation.? ? Colossians 1:15

Yes, but how do you derive the doctrine of the veneration of icons
from this? Do we really know what Jesus looked like? Do you think it
possible that, at one point in time, that an unclean spirit [assuming
such things exists] inspired an iconographer to "write" an icon for
veneration?

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>1) Reliance upon Tradition is circular reasoning, and lacks
>>self-authentication.
>>
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>We don?t rely solely on Tradition, which you?ve been corrected on
>>numerous times. You've bought into the self-authentication theory that
>>Craig posted earlier.
>
>
> Then what do you rely on? Whatever the Church tells you on a given
> day? This effectively turns the Church into an idol which, unlike
> Tradition [however one wishes to define it], can be questioned and
> examined. Also, this statement flies in the face of Church Tradition,
> which I will discuss in a moment.

You've already been told what we rely upon.

> If we are to follow Tradition, then what, aside from Tradition tells
> us to follow Tradition? We will talk more about this in a moment.
>
>
>>Speaking as someone with a background in mathematics, I realize you can?t
>>have a self-authenticating system.
>
>
> True.
>
>
>>Every true system must contain premises that are unproven and
>>are accepted at face value, though it?s helpful to bring in
>>corroborating evidence from outside the system to support it.
>
>
> Yes, these are called axioms. But the axiom of the Church [which I
> will discuss further down], according to its own Tradition, is that we
> must accept Tradition [both written and unwritten], so you argue in a
> circle.
>
>
>>Furthermore, the Holy Tradition isn?t a closed, dead system. The source
>>of Truth isn?t only Tradition, but the Holy Spirit working in the Church
>>through its Councils, the Scriptures, and the living Faith of its members.
>
>
> But Councils and Scriptures are a part of Tradition, are they not?

They are part of the Tradition. You continue thinking in terms of the
fallacy of composition. You've been corrected numerous times that the
Church doesn't follow Tradition ONLY.

As former Protestant-turned Orthodox convert Jaroslav Pelikan wrote:

"Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the
second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies
over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the 16th century, for
'in the ante-Nicene Church . . . there was no notion of sola Scriptura,
but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.' "

There was no sola scripture, nor did the OC ever subscribe to sola
tradition as you erroneously assert. The living Faith within the
visible Church was the focal point of Christian life, and it remains so
today.

> Also, the work of the Holy Spirit is very difficult to see in the

> Church Councils For example, Chalcedon in 451 specifically amended the
> decision of the First Council of Ephesus in 431 [which had condemned
> Nestorianism]and recognized the claims of Antioch theology [Nestorius'
> view] and specifically rejected the central doctrine of Alexandrine
> christology [Cyril's view] which had dominated the two councils of
> Ephesus.
>
> Therefore, the Patriarch Nestorius, who was condemned in 431 and 449,
> would have been able to subscribe completely to the formulation of
> faith laid down at Chalcedon in 451, to which Cyril, the leading
> spirit at Ephesus I, could have subscribed only with open or secret
> reservations, and to which Dioscorus, the leading spirit at Ephesus II
> could not have subscribed at all.
>
> Where was the Holy Spirit in all of this? Another problem is the
> argument by fiat - that is, any outcome, of any dispute, could be
> pinned on the Holy Spirit.

You're presenting the same fallacious reasoning over and over again that
was exposed by my counter-example. By saying the Holy Spirit isn't
directing the Apostolic Church, this is the equivalent to saying the
power and authority of the Presidency isn't founded upon the will of the
people because a couple of Presidents broke the law.

>>The early Councils - particularly Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople in
>>381 - developed and articulated important issues such as the nature of
>>the Trinity and the relationship between the Son and the Spirit and the
>>Father - all without a uniform set of NT canon.
>
>
> Perhaps. But there were Canons of Scripture prior to Nicea including
> the Muratorian Canon, the Canon of Origen, the Canon Of Eusebius, and
> the Canon of Cyril Of Jerusalem. Give or take a couple of books, they
> were very similar. Therefore, it appears that the early Church knew
> what the Scripture were. In fact, Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of
> Carthage, who lived on opposite ends of the Empire, agreed upon and
> defended the canonicity of the 4 Gospels.
>
> < Protestant bashing snipped >
>
> How, let's get back to the real issue.
>
> The issue of Orthodox Tradition fascinates me. It appears to be the
> most important, yet least supported article of Orthodox belief. I
> have never encountered an Orthodox person who can delineate the bounds
> of Tradition regarding what is true and what is not true.

You continue thinking in terms of the fallacy of composition. You've
been corrected numerous times that the Church doesn't follow Tradition ONLY.

> What is the test for truth? If one uses the "accepted by the whole
> Church" standard, then icons of God the Father [regardless of the
> official declarations against them], are perfectly acceptable since
> they were, for many centuries, accepted in all branches of Orthodoxy.
> Also, the veneration of icons would have been unacceptable for the
> first centuries of Christianity, because they were not "accepted by
> the whole church" - as seen in the Didache.

Doctrines are accepted by consensus of Ecumenical Council, which you've
been told already. You again try to make an exception the rule, which
amounts to saying, "Senator X voted against legislation Y, then law Y
isn't accepted by all the people even though 99% of the Senators voted
for it."

You've been corrected on this Didache harangue already. I'll
cut-n-paste my response as I promised you I'd do when you pretend that
an answer wasn't provided:

The Didache (and Scripture) say a bishop should have one wife. What

this means is that a bishop shouldn’t be remarried if his wife dies, and
that he can’t be divorced. It does NOT mandate a bishop to be married,
nor does it prohibit the Church from requiring bishops to be unmarried.
And the Orthodox requirement for a bishop to be unmarried is merely a
discipline, not a doctrine. It violates nothing in Scripture. This is
a perfect example of what happens when someone makes an ignorant,
personal interpretation of Scripture. Your church leaders who are
married more than once are breaking this rule in Scripture. It’s your
group that has no resemblance to the early Church. In contrast, our
priests are required to follow this Biblical injunction to not remarry.

> The Orthodox Church has a grave epistemological crisis - how can the
> poor average Orthodox Church member "know" what the Church teaches?
> The Church gives us an undefined, and often contradictory, "Tradition"
> which is supposed to be the product of the Holy Spirit.

The "poor" average Orthodox knows what the Church teaches in the same
manner a "poor" citizen learns the laws of the US - he can read them
himself and/or seek out professional legal instruction. In other words,
the lay person can read the Church's councils, canon laws, and Scripture
himself and reference professional help from the Church's
representatives to clarify and explain what he's reading - just as
Scripture tells you to do!

I asked you to provide which contradictory Traditions you are referring
to, and again you make an unsubstantiated statement that references
nothing. You want to have your cake and eat it, too; you say on the one
hand the Traditions are a mirage, then you say they contradict each
other. You wrote Protestants believe in Tradition, too, as long as they
don't contradict Scripture, but then that contradicts your claim that
the Holy Tradition doesn't exist.

> But, if we look at the elements of Tradition, we have a lot of
> problems. The problem of contradictory Church Councils was mentioned
> earlier. What about icons and Saints, which are also a part of
> Tradition? Did St. George slay a real dragon? What about the
> dog-headed St. Christopher icons which were popular into the 20th
> century - but are strangely absent today? And, who can forget the
> tale of St. Anthony the Roman - who is believed to have been swept out
> to sea while praying on a rock, and the rock [with St. Anthony on it]
> floated all the way to Novgorod, Russia?
>
> These stories were accepted by the Orthodox up to and into the 20th
> century - and are no doubt still accepted by a few hard-core
> conservatives as fact.

You've repeated this nonsense numerous times. It's irrelevant and has
no bearing on Church doctrine, especially that of salvation. These folk
beliefs are not doctrines. You have provided no reference to any
conciliar or canon law that say St. George killed a real dragon; this
lack of substantive information on your part demonstrates the
vacuousness of your comments. Furthermore, there have been times when
Protestants believed in witches and spells - just look at the Salem
witch trials. Even today, you can find plenty of Baptist hell nights
that run films depicting Satan using medieval imagery of horns and fangs
and red flesh.

> Now, the epistemological crisis, whether or not you want to see it,
> is: if Saints, and icons representing them, are a part of Orthodox
> Tradition, how can you possibly claim that this is a part of
> Orthodoxy's "fullness of truth"? If one part of Tradition is
> incorrect, what about the rest?

Epistemological crisis? You're making no sense.

> But now, the Orthodox Church comes to our rescue, implying that it can
> make sense of these pious myths, Church Councils, and Church Fathers
> [who the Church never officially lists] whose writtings often contain
> a mixture of truth and falsehood.

Wrong, they contain a mixture of metaphorical language and imagery to
describe the Real. You're stuck in a literalist box mindset, where
everything is either/or.

> In spite of these problems, the Church gives us its' nebulous concept
> of Tradition. But how is this Tradition to be viewed in terms of
> truth or falsehood? In other words, what does the Church really teach
> about its own Tradition? Or, better, what does Tradition teach about
> itself?
>
> The not so Saintly John Chrysostom wrote: "Here it is clearly evident
> that not all things were transmitted by writing, (that is, by the
> apostles), but many things were handed down by tradition for which
> there is no written record. But both the former and the later are
> alike trustworthy, so that we also consider church tradition to be
> credible.
>
> The Seventh Ecumenical Council declared: "If any person disregards
> any eccelesiastical tradition, writen or unwritten, let him be
> anathema".
>
> So, the Church effectively believe that tradition is the unwritten
> word of God. This is a very remarkable claim.
>
> Since the Church Fathers and 7th Ecumenical Council clearly order us
> to follow this written and unwritten Tradition, I must ask a very
> important question - what the are the exact bounds of Orthodox
> Tradition?

You've been told already that the Holy Tradition is a living process
within the living Church. It's not set of legal documents.

> In other words, what is an Orthodox believer, according to you or the
> Church, required to believe?

They are required to believe the decisions handed down by the Seven
Ecumenical Councils. Catechumens are provided exactly what they are
required to believe.

> For example, how does an Orthodox believer know what parts of the
> Bible are to be understood literally, and what parts allegorically?

You're back to your either/or mentality again.

> How does he or she know which Saints are authentic and which are not?

By trusting the Church's decisions on the saints it canonizes.

> Also of those who are authentic, which events in their lives are true
> and which are false?

You're back to your either/or mentality again. It's not about whether
you can empirically prove every detail in their bios, but the lessons of
piety and righteous living that those bios demonstrate. You create
problems in your own mind that really aren't problems for a mind that
seeks spiritual wisdom in an attitude of humility and openness.

> How does an Orthodox believer know which Traditions are "true" and
> which Traditions are not "true" - and why is it taught [according to
> the previous quotes] that all Church Tradition is to be considered
> valid?

You've been told already that the Holy Tradition is a living process
within the living Church. It's not set of legal documents.

> If these matters are decided by "the Church," then to what source, to
> what book does the Orthodox believer turn for a definitive statement?
> Or does one simply "turn off their mind, relax and float downstream"?

You've been told already that the Holy Tradition is a living process
within the living Church. It's not set of legal documents.

> My position is that there is no definitive statement concerning
> Tradition. Beyond the Creed and the declarations of the Seven
> Ecumenical councils, there is
> nothing that can be taken as a definitive truth in Orthodoxy. All
> other Tradition simple serves the needs of the moment for the Church.

More of the same repetitive, unsubstantiated, fallacious statements.

> If you disagree with this assessment, then how do you account for the
> anathematization by the 7th ecumenical council of those who refuse to
> accept "any ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten"?

Here you go again with another of your habits. You've made an
unsubstantiated claim somewhere up in the post that the OC doesn't
believe in its own doctrine XYZ, and you then proceed from that
erroneous premise. The anathemas in all Seven Councils still stand, and
we embrace them all.

> Joe, I would like you, or someone else, to finally state exactly what
> are the boundaries of truth in Tradition, and how the ordinary
> Orthodox believer is to find that boundary. The only answer that
> comes to my mind is that the average Orthodox is simply to trust the
> Church, effectively turning the Church into an idol which must never
> be questioned.

You've been told already that the Holy Tradition is a living process
within the living Church. It's not set of legal documents.

Orthodox, unlike Protestants, trust in the totality of Scripture. It
tells us exactly where to go for guidance of the truth, whether it be
about Tradition or the Faith. Christ orders you to listen to the Church

in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the
Church. But if he refuses even to hear the Church, let him be to you
like a heathen and a tax collector."

You ignore Scripture, and you ignore the commands of your Lord.

>

> Orthodox Tradition is a mirage that fades as one begins to examine it
> - the closer one approaches it, the more it is not there.

Then you call St. Paul a liar in denying his words: "So then, brethren,

stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by

word of mouth or by letter from us." (2 Thess. 2:15)

>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> 12) Protestants don?t embrace heresies.
>
> (Learner?s quote: ?Well, at least Brother Bob's fly-by-night community

> church didn't give
> us Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism.)
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Oh? Ever heard of oneness Pentecostalism? What about the Jehovah
> Witnesses?

Yes, I have. Are JWs or "Oneness Pentecostals" considered
Protestants? I have only heard their teachings condemned where I go
to Church!

> Don?t you realize that denying the Trinity and the divinity
> of Christ are heresies?

Sure.

> Ever heard of Iconoclasm, a widely embraced
> heresy in modern Protestant churches? Once more, you engage in special

> pleading, ignoring heresies that you?ve unrepentantly embraced for five

> hundred years in your creeds and your practices, which amount to the
> entire existence of your sect.

Ever hear of neo-Platonic Paganism which believes that prayers can be
transmitted by matter to their "prototype"? Your veneration of an
icon is based on the same philosophy as the veneration of a statue of
Apollo by an ancient Greek.

> The reality is that in the early centuries the Church had to grapple
> with the mystery of Christ's nature and find the proper language and
> conceptualization to describe it, so to speak. During this time, new
> attacks on Christ's nature arose and it wasn't always obvious initially
> that a particular thought was pernicious. Over time, the consequences
> of these theologies were understood and denounced.

The very first mistake of the Church was the rejection of Scriptures
because of some heretical interpretations of the Scripture in the
first couple of centuries. This rendered tradition a necessary
supplement to Scripture. It was a mistake because even the tradition
proved insufficient in the matters of faith, as it is clear from the
idea of so-called purgatory, when the least which is evident is that
Catholic and Orthodox Christians, boasting with the same apostolic
origin, don't see eye to eye in an important doctrinal matter.

> Some members of the Church, including clergy, embraced erroneous thinking
> during this struggle, but they were eventually removed.

Always by the influence/interference of the Byzantine State. In
earlier discussions, I talked about the differences in the fights
against Arianism and Nestorianism - the outcome of which was based on
who was on the throne.

> It never took over the
> whole Church, nor did it ever take over the majority. The OC has been
> the most consistent in maintaining sound doctrine for two thousand
> years.

Sure it did. All three Eastern Church Sees were under the
jurisdiction of heretical Bishops simultaneously during the Arian,
Monophysite, and Monothelite heresies. It should be mentioned that
Rome avoided much of this, so are they the "true Church"?

> Once again, you find a speck of error in an individual Orthodox
> and pretend this excuses the heretical forest in the Protestant back
> yard, a forest which is embraced and cultivated by the majority of your
> faithful.

But I have never been in a Protestant Church which claimed to be the
one and only Church with the "fullness of truth."

> At the very least, Orthodox take heresy and proper doctrine
> seriously, unlike your apparent position where maintaining consistent

> doctrines that don?t contradict earlier doctrines, especially regarding
> salvation, is unimportant. You make Christ?s ministry a frivolous

> affair, forever lost in the past.

Well, for an organization which takes heresy "seriously", it has had a
lot of it!

> What a sad life that makes for a

> modern Protestant who doesn?t know any better. (And the reality is that
> they don?t know any better; they?ve been brainwashed into thinking they

> are practicing the original Christianity when the evidence is lacking,
> and in many instances shows otherwise.)

I would say the same of the Orthodox. Orthodoxy is not the same as
the first century Church.

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>3a) The guys who wrote the Bible belonged to a Church that no longer
>>exists, which has no connection to the Orthodox Church.
>
>
>
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>I?ve got news for you, O? Learned One? those Churches in Galatia and
>>Corinth and Thessalonica still exist today! And they are Orthodox
>>Churches under the Greek jurisdiction!
>
>
> Yes, and there is an Episcopal Church down the street that was built
> in the 1700's. Are they the really same Church today in terms of
> belief and practice, as when the Church was founded?

No, because they're no longer in apostolic succession and they've
embraced teachings that go against the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

>>You're trying to argue that because an organic organization, the Church, grew
>>and clarified the nature of Christ and His Church?s doctrines through
>>councils over the period of centuries that it's not the same organization.
>
>
> But this is not the case. Historains have recognized, since the time
> of Professor Bauer [who Al sited] that the terms "Orthodoxy" and
> "Heresy" to not accurately represent the circumstances of the first
> centuries of Christianity. During this time, there was far more
> diversity in belief than in later periods, and perhaps even more
> diversity than exists today. Many people would have been expelled from
> the church after the Nicene Council, who in earlier times would have
> peacefully worshipped together with those who disagreed since.

First of all, you are again making unsubstantiated claims. You've
provided no evidence that: they worshipped peacefully together (in fact,
history shows this is not true; the purpose of the Councils was to
restore unity because of fighting factions over doctrine), and more
diversity of belief existed than today.

St. Paul writes, "Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the

truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are

upsetting the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:17-18)" This is in direct
reference to the Gnostic heretical belief that Christians are already
resurrected.

In 2 Peter 3:14-16, we read, "Therefore, beloved, looking forward to

these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and
blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is
salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom
given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking
in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,
which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as
they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

These passages, among others, indicate "clearly" that the concept of
right belief and wrong belief existed in the early Church. Your
unsubstantiated claims don't stand.

> The term "Orthodoxy," is an inadequate one. It is currently used to
> define the group which enforced its beliefs on others in later times -
> effectivel pushing its rivals out of the picture. Orthodoxy, after
> winning the political struggle in Byzantium, then attempted to justify
> its doctrines and beliefs by refering to earlier writers who held
> positions which, while if not entirely compatible with theirs, could
> be interpreted as kind of close.

More unsubstantiated opinions, without reference. You can't point out
any Orthodox doctrine that was ever rejected by the majority of Church
Fathers.

> The earlier Church Fathers which could be used in such a way, were are
> "Proto-Orthodox." The Church Fatherswho could not be so used in for
> the Church's purposes of the moment were relegated to the category of
> "Heresy," which is meaningful only in regard to historical
> development, and consequently has nothing to do with "purity" or
> "impurity" of doctrine. The Church never really made an official list
> of Church Fathers because, even among those whom the Church accepts,
> there is a mixture of "truth" and "falsehoods" in their works. So the
> Church "cherry picks" what it wants from these documents.

This fallacious reasoning was corrected in my original post. There
isn't such a thing as a "heretical" Church Father and an "orthodox" one.
There are Church Father writings that have heretical elements and
ideas, but such heretical material does not constitute the majority of
Patristic writing. You've not substantiated your claims with any
examples of a doctrine condemned as heretical by conciliar decision,
while the heretical idea was embraced by the majority of Patristic
writers. This scenario doesn't exist.

>>If that fallacious reasoning holds, then we have to say the Constitution and
>>the US didn't exist in 1790.
>
>
> The Constitution is different today. There have been numerous
> Amendments added, which would probably shock those who wrote the
> original document. The interpretation of the Constitution has also
> changed - such as the "right" of abortion being "found" in the 4th
> Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

You fail to grasp the counter-example. The Constitution remains the
same. Your reasoning says because it is different and has evolved, it
is no longer the Constitution. This is fallacious thinking.

>>I don?t know your sources for this reasoning, but those Churches mentioned in
>>the NT still exist today, they expanded into other lands such as Russia and
>>the USA, and remain in the Orthodox Church at this moment.
>
>
> But are they the same 2000 years ago as today? What about the Church
> in Rome, which was also mentioned? I think that you are comparing
> apples to grapes.

You're comparing a two year old with his fifty year old self and denying
there is a connection because the old man is bald, though wiser.

> The first century Didache shows us how far the Orthodox Church is from
> these early Churches. In the Didache there is no baptism of infants,
> no veneration of Mary or the saints, no icons, no "real presence", and
> Bishops were married men who were elected by their congregations.

The Didache doesn't say bishops were married men; it says they are to
have one wife.

You've been corrected on this Didache harangue already, and demonstrate
again a profound desire to ignore what has been written. I'll

cut-n-paste my response as I promised you I'd do when you pretend that
an answer wasn't provided:

The Didache isn't an all-comprehensive document of the Church's

The Didache (and Scripture) say a bishop should have one wife. What

this means is that a bishop shouldn’t be remarried if his wife dies, and
that he can’t be divorced. It does NOT mandate a bishop to be married,
nor does it prohibit the Church from requiring bishops to be unmarried.
And the Orthodox requirement for a bishop to be unmarried is merely a
discipline, not a doctrine. It violates nothing in Scripture. This is
a perfect example of what happens when someone makes an ignorant,
personal interpretation of Scripture. Your church leaders who are
married more than once are breaking this rule in Scripture. It’s your
group that has no resemblance to the early Church. In contrast, our
priests are required to follow this Biblical injunction to not remarry.

>>You choose to demean the use of the word

>>?Church? in Scripture, solely because you know in your heart that if
>>such a Church as, say Corinth, was founded by Paul and it has continued
>>to exist up to today, then the whole Protestant restoration project is a
>>Lie. So you?re left with taking your felt tip marker and crossing out
>>the inconvenient passages.
>
>
> Well, the Bible also mentions the nation of Israel. Is modern Israel
> the same as ancient Israel? Do they have the same form of government?
> Does the average Israeli have the same religious beliefs as the
> Israelites of 2000 years ago? If so, do they conduct sacrifices?

Again, another repetitive fallacy of yours.

>>You seem to not understand Christ?s words that tares will be found among
>>the wheat and His Church would be subjected to tribulations, and you
>>fallaciously conclude that a sinful individual in the Church means the
>>Church doesn?t exist, therefore making the Scriptures a book of lies
>>when it tells us the Church is the pillar of Truth.
>
>
> No, that is not my position.
>
>
>>Christ orders you to listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he
>>refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to
>>hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."
>
>
> And why do you assume, aside from simple arrogance, that this refers
> to your Church and not others?

You spend all this time thus far disparaging the Church - saying it
didn't exist at the time of the Apostles (despite Scriptural evidence),
to saying the Church of the Bible doesn't exist today - and now you seem
to be edging towards the fact that the Church existed and continues to
exist today and must be heeded as Christ commanded. This is progress...

You need to ask yourself why Christ tells you to heed the Church. He
tells you to seek out this authority... but authority for what? If, as
you believe, there's no right or wrong doctrine, then why does Christ
order you to do as the Church tells you? Think carefully about it, as
it's very important.

>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> Learner

[Cunneen]

>St.
>Ignatius taught [Smyrnaeans, 8:1,2, p. 93] that the purpose of a
>Bishop, and his authority, was to guarantee the teachings of the "true
>Church". How then did these men fall into heresy? Where was the Holy
>Spirit when Nestorius, Eudoxius, Macedonius, Acacius, Sergius, and
>Pyrrhus were Patriarchs of Constantinople?
>
>Clearly, the "line" [assuming that one existed in the first place] was
>broken many times from the Apostles to the present time and the reason
>for having Bishops in the first place [to guarantee the teachings of
>the "true Church"], was an obvious failure since it was the Bishops
>who led the Church into nearly every heresy.

It is the BODY of bishops, the magisterium, which is the recipient of the
promise, not individuals. That is why councils have authority superior to that
of a heretical bishop.

Heretics are reconciled to the Great Church or they are replaced. If they are
replaced, they are ordained by other bishops of the Great Church who are in the
"line."

This is one of your weaker arguments, Learner. You should know better.
Orthodoxy (and actually all the Ancient Churches) are communal; no bishop
stands alone in the church. Even in Catholicism, the pope is selected and
elevated communally; no pope is selected by his predecessor, but by other
bishops (the ones we call "cardinals.")

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>3b) The Church didn't exist when the Bible was wrote.
>
>
>
>>(Learner?s quote: ?First, most of the Bible [the OT - whose Canon the
>>Orthodox do not agree upon] was written long before there was a Church.?)
>>
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>This is the most ridiculous of your assertions.
>
>
> Really? The Church pre-existed the Old Testament?!?!?

This was mistake, as I didn't reread your OT qualification in the
brackets. My bad.

>>Refer back to my answer in 3b. Within the NT, Paul and the other Apostles
>>make reference to physical Churches by names which still exist today. They
>>founded these Churches and taught the Christians there.
>
>
> Are they really the same Chruches in terms of belief and doctrine?

In a sense, yes. The doctrines that were codified at a later date were
merely a fleshing out of beliefs held by early Christians and in
Scripture because disputes arouse about the implications of various
teachings of the Church. These fleshed out doctrines do not contradict
these earlier teachings, which can't be said about Protestant doctrines.

>>These Churches as a whole make up the Church, visible and invisible (?The
>>Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? - 1 Tim 3:15).
>
>
> Well, if these Churches were "the pillar and foundation of the truth"
> then why did Paul have to write so many letters correcting their false
> beliefs and practices? Where was the "true Church"? Was it in
> Galacia or in Corinth?

You again confuse a few sinful individuals with the Church as a whole.
The true Church was in the entire organization that was constituted by
Corinth and the other Churches.

You're committing the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Your reasoning
is proven wrong by counter-examples...

“Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Assembly of God can't be
Christ's Church.”
“Baptists sold slaves. An institution that buys and sells humans,

foments racism against blacks, and lynches minorities can't be Christ's

Church. I certainly can’t follow such a person’s teachings on sola
scriptura.”

The truth is that many despicable people believe and trust in the Holy
Spirit, the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ but it doesn’t have any
relevance on the merits of those doctrines. If you want perfect people
to illustrate Christ’s doctrines, then you’re in for a major
disappointment. Your tactic is one of “tar and smear” individuals for
being fallen slobs, while in turn you have little to nothing to offer in
refutation of the doctrines in question. Scripture tells us that tares
will be found among the wheat, and that His Church would endure
tribulations. But of course, these passages mean nothing for a cherry
pickin’ Protestant who can’t make sense of the entirety of Scripture
without ignoring half of it at the instruction of Brother Billy Bob, who
of course leads a sinless life.

>>It's impossible to write about something that hasn't been created yet. I
>>guess in your mind, Paul was a madman writing a fairy tale about the world
>>around him.
>
>
> Once again, the Churches that Paul wrote to are very different than
> what the Orthodox Church is, and believes, today.

You haven't provided any information that demonstrates how those
Churches believed anything that contradicts Orthodox doctrines today.

>>Furthermore, your comments here contradict your quoted words in key
>>point 3a.
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>
>>
>>4) A few bad people (or people teaching errors) in an organization
>>invalidate the legitimacy of the organization and its doctrines.
>
>
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>You're committing the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Your reasoning
>>is proven wrong by counter-examples...
>
>
>
>>?Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Baptist Church can't be Christ's
>>Church.?
>
>
> Jim Baker was a member of the Assemblies of God. Second, Jim Baker

Ok, how about this... "Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Assembly
of God can't be Christ's Church."

It's the same fallacious reasoning you are employing.

> was a profiteer who never claimed to be the true Church. Jim Baker

Untrue. He and all Protestants claim to belong to the true Church, they
just describe it as an invisible body, which runs counter the the
Bible's description of it.

> did not have the economic and military support of the U.S. government
> to enforce his edicts - as the Orthodox Churches of Byzantium and
> Russia had. In fact, the modern Russian Orthodox Church owns a slice
> of the oil monopoly and once controlled the cigarette monopoly. The
> Russian government defends and supports the Russian Orthodox Church's
> corruption, the American government threw Jim Baker in jail. Bad
> analogy!

You again throw our irrelevant side information... it's called poisoning
the well. Baptists once controlled the cotton trade in the South
through save labor.

>>?Baptists sold slaves. An institution that buys and sells humans,
>>foments racism against blacks, and lynches minorities can't be Christ's
>>Church. I certainly can?t follow such a person?s teachings on sola
>>scriptura.?
>
>
> Yes, there were Baptists who sold slaves. As did Catholics,
> Anglicans, Methodists, and [since there was a Greek community in New
> Orleans] possibly even an Orthodox Catholic, or two.
>
> However, did the Baptist Church [or any other Church], as an
> institution, own slaves and oppose their emanicipation? The Southern

Yes, they did. Southern Baptist ministers routinely used Scripture,
your infallible source for Truth, to justify their owning of slaves.
How can you believe in an infallible book when that book was used to
justify slavery?

> Baptists have worked hard for racial reconciliation - admitting the
> sins of the past leaders.

The same is true for Orthodox. Many bishops were denouncing the pogroms
and other injustices under the czarist regime. You're being selective
in cherry pickin' behaviors to illustrate a fallacious line of reasoning.

> The sad fact is that the Russian Orthodox Church owned land and Serfs.
> Is this something that the "pillar and foundation of the truth"
> should do? The Russian Orthodox Church systematically persecuted the
> Old Believers. Is this the work of Christ's Church? The Russian
> Orthodox Church, for many decades, fomented pogroms and violence
> against the Jews of Russia. Is this something that the "pillar and
> foundation of the truth" should do?

In 1792 the Strawberry Baptist Association of Virginia urged the Baptist
General Committee not to interfere with slavery since many of its
members and pastors owned slaves. In South Carolina, for example,
one-third of members and two-fifths of pastors owned slaves. Some
areas, like Philadelphia, opposed the emancipation of slaves because of
the impact that it would have on trade in their areas. This is a
demonstration of Baptists, as an institution, propagating and defending
slavery. Not only that, many of these Baptist slave owners were forcing
their slaves to baptise their infants, a practice that Baptist were
supposed to be against.

Enough of your pot-n-kettlisms.

> Did you know that the Russian Orthodox Church opposed the emancipation
> of the Serfs up to the middle 1800's? Did you ever wonder why so many
> people abandoned the Church after the Revolution, and why so few
> regularly attend Liturgy in modern Russia, where the Church is no
> longer persecuted? One could claim that the Russian Orthodox Church
> was persecuted - and it was, however, the Catholics of Lithuania and
> the Protestants of Latvia and Estonia did not abandon their Churches
> in such high numbers while facing similar persecution.
>
> Another thing that I find amazing, is that the Russian Church and
> society could not marshall the will and resources to translate and
> make available the entire Bible centuries, but it took only 4 years
> for Russians to translate the grossly anti-Semitic "Protocols of the
> Elders of Zion" into Russian [in 1872]and to make it available across
> the country.
>
> In fact, to moderns times, the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia sells
> books containing excerpts of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
> (Source:http://www.beliefnet.com/story/97/story_9754_1.html)

The link talks about a book called "He is at the Door" by Sergei Nilus
being sold in bookstores in Yekaterinburg. It has nothing to do with
the Protocols. I haven't read this book by Nilus, and I saw nothing in
this article that demonstrated its supposed anti-semitic material.
Judging by other Beliefnet articles that slammed Gibson's movie as
anti-semitic, I'm not surprised to see the site continuing on in this
vein of smearing Christian traditionalists.

>
> I am not talking about the sins or shortcomings of individuals being
> imputed to a larger organization. I am talking about an institution
> that is, and has been, rotten to its core for centuries.

That's exactly what you are doing, and it's not honest discussion on
your part.

In 1792 the Strawberry Baptist Association of Virginia urged the Baptist
General Committee not to interfere with slavery since many of its
members and pastors owned slaves. In South Carolina, for example,
one-third of members and two-fifths of pastors owned slaves. Some
areas, like Philadelphia, opposed the emancipation of slaves because of
the impact that it would have on trade in their areas. This is a
demonstration of Baptists, as an institution, propagating and defending
slavery. Not only that, many of these Baptist slave owners were forcing
their slaves to baptise their infants, a practice that Baptist were
supposed to be against.

Enough of your pot-n-kettlisms.

>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> Learner

[Higumen Al]

Your points will be lost on that sort of hard core heretic. He will
refute them with his own willful misunderstandings and nonsensical
fallacies and you will be drawn into pointless arguments inspired by
the father of lies. That sort of wicked heretic is like a madman who
has taken the true image of our precious Lord and rearranged its
pixels to portray the filthiness of dirty pornography. He has departed
the holy Church for no good reason, and you are not going to convince
him to repent of his heresy. If he were interested in the pure milk of
truth, he would humbly repent and return to the Church, but he is
interested only in contentious debates, seeking a public forum to lead
the Orthodox and pure hearted seekers after truth into the darkness of
error.

Father Al

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> First, a few observations. I notice that in more than a few of your
> posts that when you have nothing of substance to offer in defense of a
> Protestant error, you try to generate smoke by recourse to sophistry or

> the fallacy of Tu Quoque (?You did it, too!?). Be aware that I?m not

> going to play a cat and mouse game. If you repeat the same disproved

> statements over and over again, I?ll have no choice but to cut-n-paste

> my exposure of your fallacies. Anyway, key points from Learner (12 in
> all), followed by my responses:
>
> 1) Reliance upon Tradition is circular reasoning, and lacks
> self-authentication.
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

> We don?t rely solely on Tradition, which you?ve been corrected on

> numerous times. You've bought into the self-authentication theory that
> Craig posted earlier. Speaking as someone with a background in

> mathematics, I realize you can?t have a self-authenticating system. The

> idea that you could construct a self-contained truth machine was shot
> down by Kurt Gödel in the early 20th century and his proofs still stand
> today. Every true system must contain premises that are unproven and

> are accepted at face value, though it?s helpful to bring in

> corroborating evidence from outside the system to support it.

> Furthermore, the Holy Tradition isn?t a closed, dead system. The source
> of Truth isn?t only Tradition, but the Holy Spirit working in the Church

> through its Councils, the Scriptures, and the living Faith of its members.
>
> The early Councils - particularly Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople in
> 381 - developed and articulated important issues such as the nature of
> the Trinity and the relationship between the Son and the Spirit and the
> Father - all without a uniform set of NT canon. The Nicene Creed - the
> most universal statement of Christendom accepted even in Protestant

> circles ? was developed by the bishops of the Church ?prior to? and
> ?during the process of? canonization of scripture.

>
> Moreover, at a time when the world did not contain printing presses and
> books were a luxury, few if any churches had an entire set of NT
> Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. And yet, even without mass-produced books,
> and without a standard NT text, the Church grew, survived, overcame,
> thrived and continued faithfully for 400 years in unbroken, living
> continuity. In other words, the focus of the Church was on Christ, the
> author of our Faith, a Faith taught to them by Tradition and the

> apostolic teachers within the Church, and ?not? by a book about Him.

> The Church was and is a living organism, not a group of rhetoricians who
> know how to read "about" God in a list of cross-referenced,

> concordance-aided verse references. And there?s not a single historical
> reference that demonstrates this early Church practiced ?once
> saved/always saved? theology, a theology which didn?t appear until the
> 1500?s.

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 2) Paul's letters clearly teach "onced saved/always saved", in
> opposition to Orthodox teaching on salvation.
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> You commit the fallacy of exclusion. You can't extricate such a "clear"
> teaching without ignoring half of what he wrote, not to mention the
> words of the other Apostles. Paul tells us that grace can be gained,
> and it can be lost. Taking his writings AS A WHOLE, you arrive at an

> Orthodox understanding of salvation in that it?s a lifelong process and

> one can fall off the cliff at any time.
>
> "You are separated from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by Law,
> you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4)." If falling away
> permanently is impossible then Paul's words have no meaning and his
> concern is misplaced. The Parable of the Sower (Luke 8) also shows
> believers falling away through temptation, or the pursuit of material
> pleasures at the expense of producing good fruit.
>
> 1 Corinthians 10:12 - "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed
> lest he fall."
>

> 2 Corinthians 2:15 - ?For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among
> those who are BEING saved and among those who are perishing.? [Note

> that being saved is a process, not a one-time event.]
>
> Hebrews 3:6 - "But Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we
> are IF we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm TO
> THE END."
>
> Hebrews 6:4-6 - "For it is impossible for those who were once
> enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become
> partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and
> the powers of the age to come, IF they fall away, to renew them again to
> repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and
> put Him to an open shame."
>
> Hebrews 10:26-27 - "For IF we sin willfully after we have received the
> knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
> but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation
> which will devour the adversaries."
>
> Hebrews 4:11 - "Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest
> anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience."
>
> Hebrews 12:15 - "Looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace
> of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by
> this many become defiled"
>
> 2 Peter 3:17-18 - "You therefore, beloved, since you know this
> beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being
> led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and
> knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
>
> In Matthew 10:22, Jesus says to His disciples, "He who endures to the

> end will be saved." [The word ?will? implies a future event at the end,

> (My quote: ?Paul criticised people, not the existence of institutions.
> That's a ludicrous claim considering he set up many of those Churches.?
>
> Learner?s quote: ?Really? which people did Paul criticise when he
> wrote: ?To the churches in Galatia?? And yes, Paul had to battle heresy
> even in the Churches that he founded, so where is your ?true Church?

> which wrote the Bible? Is it is Galatia or Corinth perhaps? There is no
> "true Church" in this sense. Various Christian groups
> have elements found in earliest Christianity, but not one is the same as
> the early Church. All denominations [including Orthodoxy] are products

> of historical evolution.?)
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> I?ve got news for you, O? Learned One? those Churches in Galatia and

> Corinth and Thessalonica still exist today! And they are Orthodox
> Churches under the Greek jurisdiction! You're trying to argue that
> because an organic organization, the Church, grew and clarified the

> nature of Christ and His Church?s doctrines through councils over the

> period of centuries that it's not the same organization. If that
> fallacious reasoning holds, then we have to say the Constitution and the

> US didn't exist in 1790. I don?t know your sources for this reasoning,

> but those Churches mentioned in the NT still exist today, they expanded
> into other lands such as Russia and the USA, and remain in the Orthodox
> Church at this moment. You choose to demean the use of the word

> ?Church? in Scripture, solely because you know in your heart that if

> such a Church as, say Corinth, was founded by Paul and it has continued
> to exist up to today, then the whole Protestant restoration project is a

> Lie. So you?re left with taking your felt tip marker and crossing out
> the inconvenient passages.
>
> You seem to not understand Christ?s words that tares will be found among

> the wheat and His Church would be subjected to tribulations, and you
> fallaciously conclude that a sinful individual in the Church means the

> Church doesn?t exist, therefore making the Scriptures a book of lies

> when it tells us the Church is the pillar of Truth.
>
> Christ orders you to listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he
> refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to
> hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."
>
> You ignore Scripture, and you ignore the commands of your Lord. You
> might deny the sun shining on your head today is the same as that which
> shined on Socrates, but such recourse to sophistry does nothing to help
> your credibility.
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 3b) The Church didn't exist when the Bible was wrote.
>

> (Learner?s quote: ?First, most of the Bible [the OT - whose Canon the
> Orthodox do not agree upon] was written long before there was a Church.?)

>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> This is the most ridiculous of your assertions. Refer back to my answer
> in 3b. Within the NT, Paul and the other Apostles make reference to
> physical Churches by names which still exist today. They founded these
> Churches and taught the Christians there. These Churches as a whole

> make up the Church, visible and invisible (?The Church is the pillar and
> foundation of the truth? - 1 Tim 3:15). It's impossible to write about

> something that hasn't been created yet. I guess in your mind, Paul was
> a madman writing a fairy tale about the world around him.
>
> Furthermore, your comments here contradict your quoted words in key
> point 3a.
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 4) A few bad people (or people teaching errors) in an organization
> invalidate the legitimacy of the organization and its doctrines.
>

> (Learner?s quotes: ?Bad people also owned Serfs as did the Church. If

> an institution buys and sells humans, foments pogroms against the Jews,
> and murders the Old Believers, then I have a difficult time believing

> that it is Christ's Church.?
> ?My problem with these heresies is: if the Orthodox Church is the

> "pillar of Truth", which "believes and proclaims that the complete and
> integral faith delivered to the saints by Jesus Christ has been
> preserved without alteration or diminution only within the communion of
> the Orthodox Church", then the existence of these numerous heresies
> disprove Orthodoxy's claim to be the "true Church" based entirely on
> what Orthodoxy claims about itself. Now, I know the standard Orthodox
> answer: we know these to be heresy because the Church [through the Holy

> Spirit] said they were ? after the fact, of course. Another problem is

> that I am sure that many people "trusted" the Holy Spirit to lead the
> Church during times of heresy, and actually believed that Iconoclasm,

> Nestorianism, and Arianism were true teachings.?)

>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> You're committing the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Your reasoning
> is proven wrong by counter-examples...
>

> ?Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Baptist Church can't be Christ's
> Church.?
> ?Baptists sold slaves. An institution that buys and sells humans,

> foments racism against blacks, and lynches minorities can't be Christ's

> Church. I certainly can?t follow such a person?s teachings on sola
> scriptura.?
>

> The truth is that many despicable people believe and trust in the Holy

> Spirit, the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ but it doesn?t have any

> relevance on the merits of those doctrines. If you want perfect people

> to illustrate Christ?s doctrines, then you?re in for a major
> disappointment. Your tactic is one of ?tar and smear? individuals for

> being fallen slobs, while in turn you have little to nothing to offer in
> refutation of the doctrines in question. Scripture tells us that tares
> will be found among the wheat, and that His Church would endure
> tribulations. But of course, these passages mean nothing for a cherry

> pickin? Protestant who can?t make sense of the entirety of Scripture

> without ignoring half of it at the instruction of Brother Billy Bob, who
> of course leads a sinless life.
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 5) The Didache is an all-inclusive document on early Church doctrine.
> Because this document says nothing about the real presence, infant
> baptism, unmarried bishops, etc., therefore those teachings are false,
> or at least were not believed by the earliest Christians.
>

> (Learner?s quotes: ?The Didache, which I have mentioned in a number of

> other posts, shows us how far the Orthodox Church is from early

> Christianity.?
> ?So why do you follow your Church's innovative beliefs? It appears that

> the Protestants are, at least in these aspects, much closer to the early

> Church.?)

>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> It shows no such thing. The Didache isn't an all-comprehensive document
> of the Church's practices and beliefs, nor does it claim to be such.
> Furthermore, it says nothing that contradicts Orthodox teaching. It's
> an edifying document, though not all-inclusive. It doesn't prohibit
> infant baptism (as modern-day Baptists do) nor does it prohibit those
> other items you enumerated. In the Didache, there is no Trinity, no
> divinity of Christ, no crucifixion, no resurrection, no sola scriptura,

> and most certainly no ?once saved/always saved? theology. Which one of

> those items are you ready to dump because of your loyalty to the
> authority of the Didache? You want to hold this document up as a
> complete laundry list of early Christian doctrines against the Orthodox
> camp, while in turn excusing yourself from the same standard. Nice.
>

> The Didache?s description of the Eucharist with various symbols isn?t

> incompatible with Orthodox theology, which states that the elements are
> real AND symbolic. There can be many ways of describing the bread and
> wine in metaphorical language though the objects in question are the
> real blood and body of Christ; much like poetry uses metaphorical
> language to express the mysteries of real objects like trees and stars.
>
> Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that
> Protestants have dismissed. Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in
> addition to references to the Church, unbroken continuous visible forms
> of the Church which you've dismissed as nonsensical. The entire Didache
> is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
> you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
> Christianity which exists only in their minds. As Newman once said, the
> farther back in history one studies, the lesser he remains a Protestant.
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 6) Imperfection in continuity (or a human being within that continuity)
> means continuity doesn't exist.
>

> (Learner?s quotes: ?However, history proves the claims of "unbroken

> continuity with the past" nonsensical. Various Christian groups have
> elements found in earliest Christianity, but not one is the same as the

> early Church and not one is the same thing as the early Church.?
> ?The sad fact is that Orthodoxy, like Catholicism and Protestantism,

> is an institution that has evolved over time and share little

> resemblance to early Christianity.?
> ?The existence of heretical Bishops disproves the Orthodox Church's

> claim to have the "complete and integral faith delivered to the saints
> by Jesus Christ has been preserved without alteration or diminution."

> ?Second, it undermines the entire idea of "Apostolic succession", since,

> assuming such a lineage ever existed, these guys broke it.

> ?Third, it undermines the very idea of tradition. For example, St.

> Ignatius wrote [Smyrnaeans, 8:1,2, p. 93] that the purpose of a Bishop,
> and his authority, was to guarantee the teachings of the "true Church",
> thereby preventing heresy. But, when we look at Church history, it was
> the Bishops that fathered these heresies! So, the Church's traditional

> reasoning for this office is contradicted by the facts.?)
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> This ?sad fact? isn?t a fact at all. Protestant groups have embraced

> doctrines in direct contradiction to what we know about the early Church

> ? sola scriptura wasn?t believed by early Christians because they had no
> NT, let alone an agreed upon canon; ?once saved/always saved? wasn?t

> believed as is evidenced by Scriptural passages that say we can fall out
> of grace; apostolic succession is illustrated in Scripture (in fact,
> determining whether a priest was in this succession was the main method
> early Christians determined his credibility as they had nothing else to
> measure the trustworthiness of his teachings - the Church Fathers
> regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether
> Orthodox Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine; you might want to

> read the Nicene Creed again and the words ?In one Holy, Catholic, and
> Apostolic Church.?); the Eucharist is highly important in the early

> Church, but it is not in fundie Evangelical organizations; there were

> bishops and deacons in the first century ? where are your bishops and

> deacons today? The Didache (and Scripture) say a bishop should have one

> wife. What this means is that a bishop shouldn?t be remarried if his
> wife dies, and that he can?t be divorced. It does NOT mandate a bishop

> to be married, nor does it prohibit the Church from requiring bishops to
> be unmarried. And the Orthodox requirement for a bishop to be unmarried
> is merely a discipline, not a doctrine. It violates nothing in
> Scripture. This is a perfect example of what happens when someone makes
> an ignorant, personal interpretation of Scripture. Your church leaders
> who are married more than once are breaking this rule in Scripture.

> It?s your group that has no resemblance to the early Church. In

> contrast, our priests are required to follow this Biblical injunction to
> not remarry.
>

> As far as your assertion that there?s no continuity within the Orthodox

> Church since the Apostles, we already know those Churches are still

> around and they are Orthodox. Here?s the complete list of Ecumenical

> Patriarchs since St. Andrew:
> http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchs/patriarchs/
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 7) Protestants accept tradition, but not when it contradicts Scripture.
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> That sounds like the Orthodox position. But we know that indeed you
> accept teachings that contradict Scripture. For example, your church
> leaders get married more than once. More on this matter below.
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 8) Contradictions exist between Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental Traditions.
>

> (Learner?s quote: ?Second, if Tradition is the answer, then we have an

> even greater problem : The Orthodox and Roman Catholics both claim
> Apostolic, yet each reaches different conclusions from it - Purgatory is
> one example. Even within Orthodoxy there are different or the practices

> of communing/not communing infants.?)

>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Holy Tradition doesn't supply ALL answers. Neither does the Bible.
> This has never been the position of the Orthodox Church. This is a
> dubious standard you've set up, which even you don't abide by. Also,
> purgatory isn't a mandatory doctrine for Catholics. Do your homework.
>

> If you?re going to say Catholics/Orthodox/Orientals have different

> doctrines, then you need to state the ones you want to discuss rather
> than offer vague, unsubstantiated hints, another bad habit of yours.

> I?m not aware of any Orthodox parish that forbids communing infants, and

> I would challenge you to substantiate your statements with names of
> parishes and priests. Nevertheless, you seem to be seriously confused
> between local practices and doctrines.
>
> You also contradict yourself by attacking the use of Tradition in these
> remarks, but elsewhere you wrote that Protestants value Tradition as

> long as it doesn?t contradict Scripture. Which Tradition do you value?
> The ones that don?t contradict Scripture? But that ain?t so. Many
> traditions don?t contradict Scripture, but they contradict each other?
> how do you tell the difference? And you?ve ditched many Orthodox ones
> just because you don?t like them. The OC teaches that salvation is a
> process from which you can lose God?s grace through your own behavior,

> with sufficient Scriptural support to back it up. This is a shared
> understanding of Catholics, Orthodox, and Orientals, but you choose to

> dump it and read only half of what Paul says. You?re playing games with

> your soul.
>
> 2 Thess. 2:15 states, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the
> traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter
> from us."
>
> Apparently, you believe Paul is speaking nonsense since you
> sophistically argue that reference to tradition is impossible due to

> competing traditions. Paul is telling you something here. It?d be wise

> for you to make an effort to figure it out rather than dismiss it.
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 9) No one tells me how to interpret Scripture, or what doctrines to
> believe.
>

> (Learner?s quote: ?Well, whether they subscribe to what I have written

> is not the issue. I prefer to think for myself and do not need to appeal
> to authority to support my beliefs. Honestly, I am better off reading
> the Bible for myself. If I suffer in eternity, at least it will be for

> my own mistakes, rather than the silly ideas of others.?)
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> I take it you reject the Nicene Creed? There?s no way you arrived at
> ?once saved/always saved? by reading the Scripture alone. Someone in

> your current religious club put these ideas in your head along with the

> hermeneutic you employ. You?ve adopted a dangerous self-delusion.

>
> 2 Peter 3:14-16 - "Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things,
> be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and
> consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our
> beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written
> to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things,
> in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable
> people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the
> Scriptures."
>
> Paul is telling you that being untaught leads to your own destruction.

> Scripture tells us explicitly that what?s written within is hard to

> understand and one must heed the teachings of the Apostles and those
> that were trained by them.
>
> Acts 8:30 - "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked the
> Ethiopian eunuch; and the eunuch replied: "How can I, unless someone
> guides me?"
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 10) There was no consensus among Church Fathers on Scriptural exegesis.
> Church Father (or Patriarch) criticizes doctrine XYZ, therefore the
> doctrine wasn't held by the consensus of the Church.
>

> (Learner?s quotes: ?So how do you know what is true and false from their

> works? The only argument that you can fall back on is that if the
> Church has at any time believed what one, or another Father has written,
> and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins,
> because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes.
> Also, why has the Church never produced an official list of Church

> Fathers??)

>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Again, you commit the fallacy of composition, in addition to exercising
> repeated sophistry. For you, a brick in the wall is 3 inches tall;
> therefore the wall is 3 inches tall. In reality, what one Father writes

> doesn?t make it alone representative of the entirety of the Patristic
> period.
>
> I?m not sure why you care about such a list when you demean the list of
> Scriptures compiled by the Church. There?s no list of Fathers because a
> comprehensive list hasn?t been needed. (And spare us your multiple

> Apocrypha lists; you use the same non-Apocrypha books in the canon given

> you by the Church you left). It?s not an issue that divides the Church.

> The writings of a Father have to be measured against Scripture and
> conciliar law arrived at by consensus. Very few Fathers, if any, are

> perfectly Orthodox in every word or statement. That?s why we had

> councils where consensus could be worked out and unity achieved, in

> accord with Christ?s command in Scripture ?that they all may be one.?
> We?re not perfect, but we do a helluva better job in trying to maintain
> unity, as opposed to Protestants who make excuses for breaking Christ?s

> commands in their 30,000+ splits and even celebrate such sinful behavior

> as ?diversity.?

>
> In addition, one of the reasons we read the Fathers is for the morsels
> of wisdom contained in their works. Apparently, you view them as legal
> documents to scour for laws and rules. This is the difference between
> mature reading and childishness.
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> 11) Theology of icons is a false doctrine. They dishonor Christ
> because first century writer XYZ sez so.
>

> (Learner?s quote: ?Where is the proof of this? Does the Church have any
> first century
> icons??)
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

> Icons are typically made of wood, so they don?t survive well over time.

> It?s to be expected that the small number of Christians in the

> beginning would make finding such evidence even more difficult.

> Nevertheless, you?re making the fallacious argument that absence of
> evidence is evidence of absence. You ask for written accounts, it?s
> provided, and then you demand a physical specimen. I?ve got a task for
> you? Show me Christ?s bones. Many people write he?s a mythical

> character, so show me the bones. And do you have a 3nd century BC book

> of Exodus? I suppose you?ll deny it existed in that era since one isn?t

> available?
>
> The Bible is nothing more than an icon in black and white, and the cross
> hanging in your Nondenom warehouse is nothing more than an unpainted

> icon. It?s a symbol that communicates doctrine. Furthermore, universal

> literacy is a recent luxury in human history, and icons performed a
> critical role in communicating doctrines and Scripture, as well as
> provided examples of humans throughout the history of the Faith who
> lived pious lives and thereby teaching us that such a life is possible.
> Icons act as a reinforcement of proper living.
>
> By denying icons, you are denying the Incarnation of God in Christ. The

> Hebraic peoples were given the commandment to not create graven images?
> why? Because at that time God?s divinity was not manifest in physical

> form. Jews then and now regard that as impossible, even an outright
> sacrilege. The birth of Christ upset that long-held belief. God became
> matter, therefore reconciling the physical world with the spiritual.
> The Incarnation was such a revolutionary event that it indeed took
> hundreds of years for man (especially Jews taught by the old Law) to

> grasp its nature. It?s not at all surprising that a few early

> Christians had problems accepting them, given their Jewish background.
> However, over the first few centuries of the Church, this issue was
> hammered out and decided upon by consensus in an Ecumenical Council,
> just as the divinity of Christ had been. Now, many Protestants have
> resurrected the heresy of Iconoclasm out of historical ignorance and an
> unhealthy understanding of the Law in light of the Incarnation. No
> doctrine says you have to maintain an icon, or kiss it or whatever, but

> it?s a heresy to label such actions as idolatry.

>
> ?He is the image (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God, the firstborn
> over all creation.? ? Colossians 1:15
>

> ?Of old God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all.

> But now God has appeared in the flesh and lived among humans, I make
> an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter but I
> worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and
> deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I
> will not cease from worshipping the matter through which my salvation

> has been effected.?

> - St. John of Damascus, On Icons
>

> ?We do not adore as gods the figures and images of the saints. For if it

> was the mere wood of the image that we adored as God, we should likewise
> adore all wood, and not, as often happens, when the form grows faint,
> throw the image into the fire. And again, as long as the wood remains in
> the form of a cross, I adore it on account of Christ who was crucified

> upon it. When it falls to pieces, I throw them into the fire.?

> - St. Leontius of Naples (d. about 650AD)
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>

> 12) Protestants don?t embrace heresies.
>

> (Learner?s quote: ?Well, at least Brother Bob's fly-by-night community

> church didn't give
> us Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism.)
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Oh? Ever heard of oneness Pentecostalism? What about the Jehovah

> Witnesses? Don?t you realize that denying the Trinity and the divinity

> of Christ are heresies? Ever heard of Iconoclasm, a widely embraced
> heresy in modern Protestant churches? Once more, you engage in special

> pleading, ignoring heresies that you?ve unrepentantly embraced for five

> hundred years in your creeds and your practices, which amount to the
> entire existence of your sect.
>
> The reality is that in the early centuries the Church had to grapple
> with the mystery of Christ's nature and find the proper language and
> conceptualization to describe it, so to speak. During this time, new
> attacks on Christ's nature arose and it wasn't always obvious initially
> that a particular thought was pernicious. Over time, the consequences
> of these theologies were understood and denounced. Some members of the
> Church, including clergy, embraced erroneous thinking during this
> struggle, but they were eventually removed. It never took over the
> whole Church, nor did it ever take over the majority. The OC has been
> the most consistent in maintaining sound doctrine for two thousand
> years. Once again, you find a speck of error in an individual Orthodox
> and pretend this excuses the heretical forest in the Protestant back
> yard, a forest which is embraced and cultivated by the majority of your
> faithful. At the very least, Orthodox take heresy and proper doctrine
> seriously, unlike your apparent position where maintaining consistent

> doctrines that don?t contradict earlier doctrines, especially regarding
> salvation, is unimportant. You make Christ?s ministry a frivolous

> affair, forever lost in the past. What a sad life that makes for a

> modern Protestant who doesn?t know any better. (And the reality is that

> they don?t know any better; they?ve been brainwashed into thinking they

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>5) The Didache is an all-inclusive document on early Church doctrine.
>>Because this document says nothing about the real presence, infant
>>baptism, unmarried bishops, etc., therefore those teachings are false,
>>or at least were not believed by the earliest Christians.
>>
>>(Learner?s quotes: ?The Didache, which I have mentioned in a number of
>>other posts, shows us how far the Orthodox Church is from early
>>Christianity.?
>>?So why do you follow your Church's innovative beliefs? It appears that
>>the Protestants are, at least in these aspects, much closer to the early
>>Church.?)
>>
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>It shows no such thing. The Didache isn't an all-comprehensive document
>>of the Church's practices and beliefs, nor does it claim to be such.
>
>
> I never said that it did.

That's the hidden premise in your argumentation. You argue Orthodox
practice XYZ isn't in the Didache, therefore this practice wasn't held
by early Christians. It's your task to prove the Didache provides a
comprehensive list of early Christian practices.

>>Furthermore, it says nothing that contradicts Orthodox teaching.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
> There is absolutely no mention in the Didache of the bread and wine
> becoming the "real presence" of the body and blood of Jesus. Also,
> unlike the little bit of bread and drop of wine of the modern Orthodox
> Church, the Church of the Didache had Communion as a meal in which
> believers were "filled".
>
> According to the Didache, Bishops were married men elected by the
> congregation.

Yes, our bishops are elected. But the Didache doesn't say bishops were
married, nor does it say how they were elected. Quotes, please.

> According to the Didache - which prescribed worship, there was no
> mention of the veneration of Mary or the saints and no icons.

Where does the Didache say it prescribed worship??? What happened to
your earlier claim that there were differing beliefs and practices in
the early Church? Is so, they why do you old this singular document up
with such importance?

This proves what I wrote above, that you grant this work a status of
comprehensiveness that is unwarranted. The Didache says nothing that
contradicts Orthodox practice and doctrine. It doesn't say Christians
didn't venerate Mary or the saints or icons. It doesn't prohibit such
practices. You also <sigh> again, look for a lack of Orthodox practices
while failing to notice the absence of your own.

>>It's an edifying document, though not all-inclusive. It doesn't prohibit
>>infant baptism (as modern-day Baptists do) nor does it prohibit those
>>other items you enumerated.
>
>
> Yes, it does prohibit infant baptism!

Where? Quote, please.

> "But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and
> whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or
> two days before.."

This prohibits infant baptism no more than it prohibits those who have
health problems like diabetes or elderly in weak health who can't fast.
Use some common sense fer cryin' out loud. The Church isn't a
heartless, legalistic body. Scripture tells us that entire households
were baptised at the same time. It didn't say babies were to excluded.

> How many infants would last 24-48 hours without food?

I take it you don't have any children. Any healthy infant can withstand
that period of time without food, though I don't believe that infants
were ever required to fast before baptism, just as today they are not
required to confess before communion even though canon law says Orthodox
are supposed to do such.

By the way, my daughter didn't eat for almost two days after being born
because of swallowing problems. The doctors said it was just fine and
it happens all the time.

What's most amusing is that you quote this part of the Didache and yet
you somehow ignore the fact that Baptists reject fasting altogether.
How many Baptists fast for 1-2 days before baptism?????

>>In the Didache, there is no Trinity,

That's not the doctrine of the Trinity as illustrated in the Nicene
Creed. That just names three things without explaining the relationship.

> Wrong.
>
> "And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these
> things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
> the Holy Spirit, in living water."
>
>
>>no divinity of Christ,
>
>
> "Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God
> (Son) of David!"

The translations don't indicate a clear divinity in Christ as we
understand it today. The Charles H. Hoole translation mentions:

"First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy
vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus
Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever."

And then further down is written:
"Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of
David. If any one is holy let him come (to the Eucharist); if any one is
not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen."

In addition, what this passage indicates is that Confession was required
to receive the Eucharist, another practice the Baptists have arbitrarily
dumped. Again it shows how closely the Orthodox Church has maintained
its practices from the very beginning.

>>no crucifixion, no resurrection, no sola scriptura,
>>and most certainly no ?once saved/always saved? theology. Which one of
>>those items are you ready to dump because of your loyalty to the
>>authority of the Didache? You want to hold this document up as a
>>complete laundry list of early Christian doctrines against the Orthodox
>>camp, while in turn excusing yourself from the same standard. Nice.
>
>
> The Didache affects my view of history because it shows what was, and
> what was not present in the early Church.

You're not being honest with yourself. It doesn't show "once
saved/always saved" - though you believe in it. It doesn't show sola
scriptura - though you believe to it. It shows a hierarchy which is to
be respected, confession, a single Church to be gathered unto the ends
of the earth, fasting, and emphasizes the importance in the Eucharist -
all things you demean. I don't see anything there that resembles a
Nondenom church. In fact, this document played an important part in my
own conversion. I'd urge you to hand it out to all your Nondenom
friends and then explain why your practices are so different.

You're going to repeat the same talking points as if it wasn't already
addressed, and I'm going to cut-n-paste the same exposure of your
fallacious reasoning...

The Didache’s description of the Eucharist with various symbols isn’t

incompatible with Orthodox theology, which states that the elements are
real AND symbolic. There can be many ways of describing the bread and
wine in metaphorical language though the objects in question are the
real blood and body of Christ; much like poetry uses metaphorical
language to express the mysteries of real objects like trees and stars.

Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that

Protestants have dismissed. Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in
addition to references to the Church, unbroken continuous visible forms

of the Church which you've dismissed as nonsensical. The entire Didache

is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
Christianity which exists only in their minds.

>>Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that
>>Protestants have dismissed. Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in
>>addition to references to the Church, unbroken continuous visible forms
>>of the Church which you've dismissed as nonsensical.
>
>
> Yes, and the Bishops are married and elected by the congregation. How
> about yours? The Church of the Didache also had Prophets and
> Apostles. Why does modern Orthodoxy lack these offices?

We don't lack those offices because they, along with saints, are not
offices in the sense of clergy. Furthermore, the Didache says:

"15:1 Elect, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the
Lord, men who are meek and not covetous, and true and approved, for they
perform for you the service of prophets and teachers."

This clearly says bishops and deacons perform the roles of prophets and
teachers. And we do elect our bishops. The Didache says nothing about
election by congregations.

> The whole point of the Didache was to provide a summary of what was
> proper teachings, it is not intended to refute other teachings. It is
> interesting that the The Didache warns against "false prophets," but
> does not really go into detail except in warning against Prophets who
> misuse their vocation. This raises yet another problem for Orthodoxy,
> since in the early Church, Prophets had a major role in the church.
>
> Why, in later Orthodoxy, was the role of Prophet eliminated? What
> about the office of Apostles? It also interesting to note the absence
> of a Priest in the celebration of the Didache Eucharist!

Prophets were not eliminated. The Didache says bishops are to perform
the role of prophets. Also, it doesn't say anything about who conducts
the Eucharist. Note the absence of women, children, lepers, space
aliens, TeleTubbies, and blue-eyed carpenters in the celebration of the
Eucharist.

> So, before running to take another swing at the Protestants, you might
> want to measure your Church according to the teachings and practices
> of the early Church!

Our teachings and practices are consistent with the early Church and
you've not shown one instance otherwise. I've demonstrated in abundance
that Baptists hold practices contrary than what you see in the Didache.

>>The entire Didache
>>is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
>>you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
>>Christianity which exists only in their minds.
>
>
> The is no way one can reach this conculsion after reading the Didache.

That's the exact conclusion one gets after reading the Didache. As I
wrote before, a Protestant has to ignore half of what he reads to make
literalist sense out of it.

>>As Newman once said, the farther back in history one studies, the lesser he
>>remains a Protestant.
>
>
> Sure, Christianity itself is, relative to all of human history, a new
> development. So, I guess the further back we go, the more Pagan we
> become!
>
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> Learner

His words were in reference to Christians, but of course that's not
obvious for one who can't escape the literalist box.

[Al]

***Joe, even if "Learner" agreed with you he will never admit it. Unrequited
heretics rarely do.

Al

"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:flg7d.75478$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>6) Imperfection in continuity (or a human being within that continuity)
>>means continuity doesn't exist.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>>This ?sad fact? isn?t a fact at all. Protestant groups have embraced
>>doctrines in direct contradiction to what we know about the early Church
>>? sola scriptura wasn?t believed by early Christians because they had no
>>NT, let alone an agreed upon canon; ?once saved/always saved? wasn?t
>>believed as is evidenced by Scriptural passages that say we can fall out
>>of grace;
>
>
> The same can be said of any Church, including Orthodoxy. All Churches
> are historical developments.

There's a difference between historical development of doctrines that
are consistent with prior doctrines and belief, and adopting new
doctrines that contradict previous ones (or adopting those that were
decided to be heresies by consent of the Church from across the
Christian world). The latter is a trait of Protestants, the former of
the Orthodox Church.

> The major mistake of Orthodoxy is to read later opinions back into
> earlier times. We know that icons were a late development in the

Uh huh, yeah right. You wouldn't be guilty of this major mistake, would
you?

<sigh> Here you go again, with something you *know* without any
substantive evidence. Eusebius writes about icons in the early Church
that were as old as the time of the Apostles (and he was hostile to the
practice which makes him a fairly objective source). Quotes from his
work were provided, but you pretend it wasn't. There's a big difference
between what you *know*, and what *we* read in the written record.

> Church and that the structure of church governance varied and changes
> over time. Early Christianity was not monolithic in belief. In fact,
> it appears to have been much more tolerant of variations of opinion
> than the post Nicene church.

But you continue referring to the Didache as an isolated document in a
vacuum that expresses a unified set of practices in the ante-Nicene
Church. Which is it? Were there unified non-Orthodox practices or were
there a bunch of mercurial, undocumented practices which you somehow
discovered in the 1500's?

The funny thing is, you find evidence of everything in the early Church
except for Orthodoxy. You do your best to erase your past life, your
past beliefs, yet... it doesn't go away. I agree there were beliefs in
the early days that were picked up today by Protestants. I've told you
as much by insisting the Didache is not an all inclusive document of
early Church practices. A part of the problem is that it's like a
dissected, half-a$$ religion that opts for the common denominator rather
than the fullness of the Faith as practiced by Christians for almost the
entirety of the last two thousand years. Another problem for you is
that these variations of early beliefs were never held by the majority,
and the majority of Church Fathers condemned wrong beliefs as heresies
in Ecumenical Councils. You might view what you do as "tolerance...",
but you leave out the next two words "... of error." The Orthodox
Church, following the standards set by St. Paul and other Apostles,
considers wrong beliefs and doctrines to be dangerous, and to be
corrected with proper doctrines through the Church. This is supported
by Scripture.

>>apostolic succession is illustrated in Scripture....
>
>
> Hmm, if "apostolic succession" is so critical, why didn't Jesus or
> Paul explicitly require it? The one passage cited by proponents of
> Apostolic succession is Matt. 16:18 - on which Catholics and Orthodox
> differ greatly! Additionally, what good is Apostolic succession? The
> Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics all claim to have it and each
> has teachings that contradict the others. Which is correct?

Provide these teachings that contradict the others. I'm not responding
to unsubstantiated air balls.

> Second, a Bishop of the first century Church was very different from
> what we have today. We can clearly see the evolution of Church
> government in Pauls letters.

Such evolution isn't clear at all. You presume his earlier letters
provide summaries of all roles held by Church leaders. This is what
happens when your only recourse is to proof-text and hyper-rationalize
every word in Scripture without a longstanding ecclesiastical body to
help you out with a proper context.

> Paul recognized "Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers" then, workers of
> miracles, also those having gifts of healing (1 Corinthians 12:28).

This is the conflation of roles and offices among evangelicals that I've
read in other debates. Those were not official offices in the
hierarchy. Bishops could and did perform the role of prophet, and the
Apostles could and some did perform the role of bishop. Eusebius writes
(History of the Church, p. 118):

"All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James
himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother,
were still alive..."

The Didache also mentions bishops performing the role of prophets in the
Church. You're providing a list of "roles" that could be played by
various Church offices, including regular lay persons, while at the same
time we have evidence that bishops and deacons existed during the time
of the Apostles. In the Didache (Chapter 15), we read about bishops and
deacons. Some scholars guesstimate the Didache was written as early as
50 A.D., which puts it in the same time frame as 1 Corinthians, if not a
bit earlier.

I don't know why you would subscribe to the most mind-bending theory,
that Christ's Apostles initiated one form of Church governance, then
suddenly here come the bad 'ol Orthodox Catholics who wipe it out and
institute an "incorrect tradition." Why would Christ allow the early
Church to be set up in one form and the later Church in another?

> There is no office of Bishop and certainly no succession, at to this
> point in history.

You infer absence of office XYZ because you presume 1 Corinthians
provides a laundry list of offices, which you haven't proven. This is
the same technique you take to the Didache.

> In Ephesians 4:11 Paul inserts "Evangelists and Pastors" after
> Prophets and before Teachers. A slightly different revision is made in
> Romans 12:6-7, where Diakonia is placed before teaching as one of the
> "gifts differing" (kharismata).

Again, one can assume different roles at once - say Evangelist and
Apostle - while holding an office, say that of bishop.

> The Apostles were the founders of the Church. They appointed Prophets
> and Teachers to care for the growing Church. So, Apostles, Prophets
> and Teachers were the basic foundation of Paul's organization of the
> Church.

You don't know that. These roles were often overlapping, and didn't
necessarily correspond to a hierarchical office in the Church.

Also, there most certainly was the concept of an episcopate even before
the birth of Christ. In the Septuagint, "episkopos" is used for
overseer in various senses in Nehemiah 11:9, 2 Chronicles 34:12 & 17,
Judges 9:28, Isaiah 60:17, and Numbers 4:16. In Job 20:29, God is
referred to as episkopos. Christ is an episkopos in 1 Peter 2:25, and
that's why today we refer to him as the Bishop over the entire Church.

The episcopacy was hardly a 2nd century innovation that would have
"shocked" 1st century Christians.

> So when do we see a "Bishop"? In 1 Timothy 3:1-2 , Acts 20:28, and in
> Titus 1:7 there is mention of a Bishop. However, this is not a
> separate "office", but is one of the Church's "Prebyteroi" or elders.

The word "priest" is a shortening of the word "presbyter", which makes
sense that a bishop is a priest, elevated to shepherd over a
conglomeration of Churches in a given area due to growth. It's not at
all surprising that there were few bishops in the beginning since the
Christian community was smaller.

> These men eventually took over the function of the Prophets and fought
> against the Gnostic heresy, which was the result of the earlier errant
> "Prophets" in the Church. The elders acted to regulate doctrine
> rather than relying on the free inspiration of Prophets. The earlier
> "Apostles, Prophets and Teachers" morphed into "a Herald, an Apostle,
> and a Teacher" by the time we get to 2 Timothy 1:11.
>
> The institution of "regulatory elders" became widespread by the 2nd
> century, while, during the same time, the charismatic "offices"
> declined.
>
> Ignatius provides early evidence of a major change in the earlier
> practices and Church government. He claimed that the office of Bishop
> as a divine right connected with apostolic teaching. This ultimately
> laid the foundation for the incorrect tradition of the "apostolic
> succession" of bishops.

"Incorrect tradition?" By whose authority did you confer that it is
incorrect? This is the big problem with the mindset you bring to the
table. You'll engage in deflections and sophistry in denying Tradition
exists (because we supposedly have no solid means of delineating true
Traditions), in addition to denouncing the authority of the Church and
its hierarchical structure in favor of your own authority (quote: "I

prefer to think for myself and do not need to appeal to authority to

support my beliefs."), and you earlier wrote the non-trivial assertion
that even Protestants have evolved... and yet here you are speaking
about incorrect tradition and criticizing the evolution of the governing
structure of the Church. Earlier, you denied that the Church today
existed at the time of Paul, now you say the Church evolved beyond the
structure of the early Paulist period, to an incorrect tradition of
apostolic succession in the 2nd century. You're implicitly admitting
that the Orthodox hierarchical structure grew out of the Church of
Paul's times.

The only consistent thread in your beliefs is that you've pre-decided
that apostolic succession is bad, and any argumentative means are
legitimate to refute it, even if these arguments contradict each other.

It also looks to me like you read a bit more over the last day and are
now finally adjusting your beliefs.

> In addition, I am not sure why "apostolic succession" is so important.
> It did not prevent the many heresies in the Eastern Church [many of
> which were taught by those who claimed "apostolic succession"] nor
> did it head off competing Popes and anti-Popes of the 1400's in the
> Latin Church.

A repeat of your fallacious talking points. I'll cut-n-paste my earlier
response again...

Your fallacious claim that reference to a few heretics in this long
lineage proves the lineage is either non-existent or broken is shown
false by counter-example...

"Because Nixon was a crook, broke the Constitution, and resigned,
therefore, there's no continuity in the US government (or Presidency).

There's no such thing as a continuous lineage of US Presidents. The
process of succession for the office of President, the ultimate enforcer
of the Law, therefore isn't important."

This is the illogical nonsense that you continuously throw out. Those
few heretics were booted out, denounced, and the office that they
occupied continued on as it had since the Apostles.

> Another problem for the "true believerism" of Orthodoxy is Mark 9:38
> (also Luke 9:50):

It's a problem? How? If others use Christ's name and bear good fruit,
then let them be. But if they use the name of Christ against us, then
they are false prophets. This doesn't alter the fact that those folks
might follow "incorrect doctrines", and should be corrected. To use
these passages as a blank check to believe what you want, and behave as
you want, isn't in accord with the rest of the NT where Christians are
repeatedly warned to watch out for those who distort Scripture and
correct doctrine, and false prophets who hijack Christ's name but bear
bad fruit by sowing falsehoods and dissension.

It seems to me that you are using Christ's name in order to put yourself
against the Orthodox Church.

> "And John answered Him, saying, "Master, we saw one casting out devils
> in Thy name, but he followeth us not, so we forbad him because he
> followeth not us. But Jesus said, "Forbid him not, for there is no
> man who shall do a miracle in My name that can lightly speak evil of
> Me. For he that is not against us is on our side."
>
> Apparently, the apostles had not ordained/authorized this guy, but
> Jesus did not stop him - in spite of the complaints of the Apostles.

I see you recognize that there was indeed an inner clique who believed
the authority to teach proper doctrine was their own, and it was their
domain to ordain others.

>>Apostolic Church.?); the Eucharist is highly important in the early
>>Church, but it is not in fundie Evangelical organizations; there were
>>bishops and deacons in the first century ? where are your bishops and
>>deacons today?
>
>
> Where are your Prophets, Teachers, and Apostles? What about "workers
> of miracles" and "those having gifts of healing"?
>
>
>>The Didache (and Scripture) say a bishop should have one
>>wife. What this means is that a bishop shouldn?t be remarried if his
>>wife dies, and that he can?t be divorced. It does NOT mandate a bishop
>>to be married, nor does it prohibit the Church from requiring bishops to
>>be unmarried. And the Orthodox requirement for a bishop to be unmarried
>>is merely a discipline, not a doctrine. It violates nothing in
>>Scripture.
>
>
> So, when Paul says in Titus 1:6 says that a Bishop must be the husband
> of one wife, what he is *really* saying is that a Bishop must be the
> husband of no wife? Why does you Church feel it necessary to correct
> Paul?

Is it really that difficult for you? Do you really believe Paul ordered
bishops to be married, and ordinary laymen could choose to be married or
not? For what purpose? That makes absolutely no sense. The passage
does not mandate marriage. It's limiting a bishop to one wife.

>>This is a perfect example of what happens when someone makes
>>an ignorant, personal interpretation of Scripture.
>
>
> Well, your blind acceptance of the teachings of your idol [the Church]
> are even worse. Paul said what he said, and I will go with Paul!

You reject Christ by calling His Church an idol. He orders you to

listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he refuses to hear them,
tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to hear the Church, let
him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

>>Your church leaders who are married more than once are breaking this rule in

>>Scripture. It?s your group that has no resemblance to the early Church. In
>>contrast, our priests are required to follow this Biblical injunction to
>>not remarry.
>
>
> Really? It is nice to know that divorce is not a problem in Orthodoxy
> - maybe I should rejoin the Church.

Divorce is a grave sin that requires repentance, an idea foreign to
Baptists. Your mind is stuck in either/or.

> But then again, since you want to shift to this subject, Jesus spoke
> out against divorce and re-marriage [Mark 10:12]. However, the
> Orthodox Church says that a maximum of three "valid marriages are
> permitted by the Church", in many cases the reasons for the divorce,
> at least what I have seen, were un-Biblical. So, who should I believe,
> the Son of God, or the Orthodox Church?

Mark 10:11-12 doesn't forbid divorce. It reads, "So He said to them,
'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against
her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she
commits adultery.'" What he is emphasizing is that divorce is a sin,
which was a break from Jewish tradition. Divorce isn't a light affair
in the Orthodox Church and remarriage carries the burden of penance and
a different rite is performed than that of a first marriage. You might
ridicule this practice, but I fail to see how the non-chalance of
Protestants regarding marriage is better, or somehow more Biblical.

>>As far as your assertion that there?s no continuity within the Orthodox
>>Church since the Apostles, we already know those Churches are still
>>around and they are Orthodox. Here?s the complete list of Ecumenical
>>Patriarchs since St. Andrew:
>>http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchs/patriarchs/
>
>
> But were these Churches the same in belief and practice 2000 years
> ago? The Bible mentions Lebanon in Deuteronomy 1. Is that the same
> Lebanon that exists today?

There you go again.

>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>To "work out" your salvation with fear and trembling is pure Orthodoxy,
>>not a 30 second sinner's-prayer-theology.
>
>
> And it is a totally wrong interpretation of the passage. The context
> of this is:
>
> "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my
> presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your
> salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to
> will and to act according to his good purpose."
>
> The use of the term "dear friends" [agapetos] implies that Paul was
> addressing people who were already saved. God does call us to do
> good, but these works are not terms of our salvation - they are the
> fruit of salvation which God motivates and enables us to do.

Ha ha ha ha ha :-))))) You gotta be kidding. You read "dear friends"
and presume they were saved? Paul clearly instructs his "friends" to
"work out your salvation." Bearing good works in fear and trembling?
This is a good one. I'll bring it up this weekend at my parish. This
is best Prot "interpretation" I've read yet.

> Also, the 30 second prayer worked for the thief on the cross. Did it
> not?

In which Gospel passage did you read him praying? Christ saved him
right there on the spot. The last time I checked, He hasn't been making
house visits.

>>The Scriptural passages I've provided require an explanation from someone who
>>sustains the idea that salvation is gained once and for all at a singular
>>moment in this life and can never be lost.
>
>
> Paul tells us in Romans 10:
>
> "For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses
> with his lips and so is saved."

It doesn't say when he's saved. It's Orthodox teaching that the
conversion of the heart is a process that must be followed for life and
not something that occurs by merely moving the lips to a canned prayer.

> Justification means that one is made righteous while salvation means
> that one is granted eternal life, so yes, it happens in a singular
> moment.
>
> Instead of going through the motions set forth by the Orthodox Church,
> and never really knowing if you are saved, Paul tells us in Romans 10,
> that first, the word of faith is preached. Second, the hearer believes
> in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead (justification).
> Third, the hearer confesses with his lips that Jesus is Lord
> (salvation). So we see from the above that two "events" occur:
> justification and salvation.
>
> The believer's faith is completed as he, or she, moves from
> justification to salvation. It is the Holy Spirit within who leads the
> individual to complete his faith. It is not a human work. As the
> scripture says, "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy
> Spirit." (1 Cor 12:3) The entire process is totally apart from human
> works of any kind, "For by grace you have been saved through faith;
> and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God --- not because
> of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8,9)

I take it you're not able to reconcile these passages with the ones I
posted above. That's ok.

>>I suspect you'll say these people were never
>>saved in the first place, in which case
>
>
> Yes I would, based on the above.

The above, taken in with the whole of Scripture, especially the passages
I posted, doesn't support "once saved/always saved."

>>it makes the sinner's prayer and other simplistic devices rather trivial.
>
>
> It depends on the state of the person reciting it. Some people say
> things that they do not really believe.

This indicates a profound misunderstanding of people. Some days a
person can believe with all their heart, and then, maybe something
tragic happens, and they abandon their faith. Or they might be
confronted with false teachings that "disturb their faith", as Paul
warned. Whatever the case, it's impossible that a person on a flip of a
switch believes with their entire heart, and never wavers after that.
There are ups and downs. Doubts ebb and flow. Faith requires work.
It's not easy. If someone stops praying, attending services, reading
Scripture, repenting for sins, then I'm betting the feller is toast.
What Baptists are offering is a dangerous, a very dangerous teaching
that in itself can generate anxiety in a convert when he knows for
himself that struggles occur every day with his faith. It's no wonder
you see people performing multiple sinner's prayers, and repeated alter
calls.

The passages I provided indicate the individuals were indeed
"enlightened" at one time, and had received "God's grace", but their
faith was being shaken and they were in danger of falling unless they
held to the Faith until the end. Romans 10 makes perfect sense when
taken in context of the entirety of the NT, from an Orthodox
understanding. How one can be "enlightened" in the Word or have
received God's grace, but not really have been saved, but a "dear
friend" of Paul is presumed to have been saved, doesn't pass the giggle
test.

>>If I can't know for certain "when" I'm saved, and "what" exactly I must do to
>>become saved, then "once saved/always saved" is a misleading marketing trick
>>by fundie evangelicals, and an extremely dangerous one at that.
>
>
> This statement is based on the false assumption that you cannot know
> if you are saved.
>
> If I buy into the Orthodox line that no one can know if he or she is
> saved, then I have another question for you. How can the Orthodox
> Church teach that no human can know whether or not he/she is
> saved/going to heaven or hell - much less know another person's fate -
> while humans in the very same Church [Bishops and Synods] can
> "declare" that certain people are in heaven and
> that they can intercede on our behalf?

This is actually good question. The answer is that the person is
associated with miracles after leaving this world, and the Church
investigates and deems he or she lived a life in accord to a saint,
which is a life that is open to the light of Christ and shares this
light with the world in this life and the next. It's said that when a
saint gets to heaven, he will be surprised by three things. First, he
will be surprised to see many he did not think would be there. Second,
he will be surprised that some are not there whom he expected to see.
Third, he will be surprised that he himself is there. It's this spirit
of humility that one must adopt and not presume on one's end fate until
you've actually passed through the gate.

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>9) No one tells me how to interpret Scripture, or what doctrines to
>>believe.
>>
>>(Learner?s quote: ?Well, whether they subscribe to what I have written
>>is not the issue. I prefer to think for myself and do not need to appeal
>>to authority to support my beliefs. Honestly, I am better off reading
>>the Bible for myself. If I suffer in eternity, at least it will be for
>>my own mistakes, rather than the silly ideas of others.?)
>>
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>I take it you reject the Nicene Creed?
>
>
> No.

Why not?

>>There?s no way you arrived at ?once saved/always saved? by reading the
>>Scripture alone.
>
>
> And there is no way that you can arrive at the making and veneration
> of icons, or celebate Bishops by reading either Scripture or the early
> writtings of the Church.

Not all Truth is contained in Scripture or any writing.

>>Paul is telling you that being untaught leads to your own destruction.
>>Scripture tells us explicitly that what?s written within is hard to
>>understand and one must heed the teachings of the Apostles and those
>>that were trained by them.
>
>
> I agree with Paul. However, your Church has wandered so far from the
> teachings of Paul and the early Church that I no longer view Orthodoxy
> as a credible teacher of Scripture.

Unsubstantiated claim. No practice of the Orthodox Church have you
shown to contradict Paul's letters.

>>Acts 8:30 - "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked the
>>Ethiopian eunuch; and the eunuch replied: "How can I, unless someone
>>guides me?"
>
>
> This guy knew the OT prophecy. However, the Eunuch did not have the
> Gospels, he only knew of the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah. We
> have the text today. Why is my local Priest a better interpreter of
> the Scripture than anyone else? I have had several atheist professors
> who know more about the Scriptures [in the original languages] than
> any Priest that I have ever met, yet I would rather read the
> Scriptures for myself.

I think this is the wrong approach to Scripture. If indeed you see it
as simply a list of rules and do's and don't's, then an atheist
professor could be as good of a teacher and maybe even the best teacher
of Scriptures. But we know that it's much more than that. It's not
about only about proof-texting against concordance notes on the side.
It's not about proving or not proving worldwide floods, looking for the
Ark on Mt. Ararat, nor dissecting it under a historical-critical lens.
The Word is Christ, and a guide in how best to open ourselves to the
life He wills for us. This can't be found in an atheist who doesn't
live the Christian life, nor can it be found in someone who doesn't
understand the underlying spiritual message that's in the words on
paper. Can a non-Orthodox live the Lord's will better than many
Orthodox? Most certainly. However, it's my belief that the OC provides
the most stable constructs, the most consistent guide over the span of
the last two thousand years, for opening oneself to genuine repentance,
humility, prayer, and reception of His grace. You obviously feel
otherwise. That's your right. God insists every man must wipe his own
nose and take responsibility for his actions. I pray for your sake your
views are not hell fodder.

> Afterall, if there is a day of judgement, neither my professors nor my
> Priest will be able to help me. If I must suffer for an error, I
> would rather suffer for my errors instead of the errors of others.
>
> Learner

How do you know your errors are truly your own and not the repeated
errors of others?

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>12) Protestants don?t embrace heresies.
>>
>>(Learner?s quote: ?Well, at least Brother Bob's fly-by-night community
>>church didn't give
>>us Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism.)
>>
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>Oh? Ever heard of oneness Pentecostalism? What about the Jehovah
>>Witnesses?
>
>
> Yes, I have. Are JWs or "Oneness Pentecostals" considered
> Protestants? I have only heard their teachings condemned where I go
> to Church!

By what standard are they condemned against? The Nicene Creed? But
that's extra-Biblical. I challenge you to go into a JW board and try to
prove to them Christ wasn't impaled on a stake. They'll out-Prot you
with sola scriptura techniques any day. My view is that this common
thread of sola scriptura puts them in the Protestant camp, regardless if
they reject the Nicene Creed.

>>Don?t you realize that denying the Trinity and the divinity
>>of Christ are heresies?
>
>
> Sure.
>
>
>>Ever heard of Iconoclasm, a widely embraced
>>heresy in modern Protestant churches? Once more, you engage in special
>>pleading, ignoring heresies that you?ve unrepentantly embraced for five
>>hundred years in your creeds and your practices, which amount to the
>>entire existence of your sect.
>
>
> Ever hear of neo-Platonic Paganism which believes that prayers can be
> transmitted by matter to their "prototype"? Your veneration of an
> icon is based on the same philosophy as the veneration of a statue of
> Apollo by an ancient Greek.

No, it's not. It's based on the worship of the Incarnation as a
material human being, and fully accepting God's reconciliation of the
spiritual with the material. It's also following the Seventh Ecumenical
Council and rejecting the heresy of Iconoclasm, a heresy that's in the
Baptist front pocket.

>>The reality is that in the early centuries the Church had to grapple
>>with the mystery of Christ's nature and find the proper language and
>>conceptualization to describe it, so to speak. During this time, new
>>attacks on Christ's nature arose and it wasn't always obvious initially
>>that a particular thought was pernicious. Over time, the consequences
>>of these theologies were understood and denounced.
>
>
> The very first mistake of the Church was the rejection of Scriptures
> because of some heretical interpretations of the Scripture in the
> first couple of centuries. This rendered tradition a necessary
> supplement to Scripture. It was a mistake because even the tradition
> proved insufficient in the matters of faith, as it is clear from the
> idea of so-called purgatory, when the least which is evident is that
> Catholic and Orthodox Christians, boasting with the same apostolic
> origin, don't see eye to eye in an important doctrinal matter.

I've corrected you on this before. Purgatory isn't a mandatory doctrine
for Catholics. IOW, a Catholic can reject it and be a good Catholic.

Secondly, neither Catholics nor Orthodox deny the other side maintains
legitimate apostolic succession, or that Holy Tradition exists, or the
Eucharist is the real blood and body of Christ, or the full set of
sacraments, or the process of salvation, or the reality and necessity of
the visible Church. What separates us is the authority of the Roman
See, and the accompanying doctrine of papal infallibility. It's not an
issue that can be resolved by Tradition, so your insistence that we
maintain two parallel Traditions that teach differently isn't quite
accurate. It's more of a hole in the Holy Tradition, with both sides
not agreeing on how it is to be rectified. The issue is indeed about
the authority of a bishop and whether it can cover the other
Patriarchates. It will take an Ecumenical Council to fix the problem,
but it won't happen in my lifetime. At the end of the day, it's not a
factor in the continuing doctrines and teachings regarding my salvation,
so I don't worry about it.

>>Some members of the Church, including clergy, embraced erroneous thinking
>>during this struggle, but they were eventually removed.
>
>
> Always by the influence/interference of the Byzantine State. In
> earlier discussions, I talked about the differences in the fights
> against Arianism and Nestorianism - the outcome of which was based on
> who was on the throne.

Not exactly accurate. The non-Byzantine West accepted these Councils.

There was meddling at times, but from the Emperor's perspective, he was
more concerned that a unified doctrine existed rather than taking the
side of one faction over another in order to maintain peace in the
empire. In addition, you can go back and read the Councils, and the
Patristic writings, and see the clear reasoning behind the decisions.
You'll find the right decisions were reached, and the majority of Church
Fathers throughout Christendom taught those doctrines before and after
the Councils. You've not offered anything substantive to indicate that
you regard these decisions to be false. In fact, you stated you accept
the Nicene Creed. Why? If you truly believe it's all about force, why
do you not embrace those heresies? Who's twisting your arm?

>>It never took over the
>>whole Church, nor did it ever take over the majority. The OC has been
>>the most consistent in maintaining sound doctrine for two thousand
>>years.
>
>
> Sure it did. All three Eastern Church Sees were under the
> jurisdiction of heretical Bishops simultaneously during the Arian,

No, it did not. And if you're going to go on with this fallacious
reasoning, please provide substantive evidence that anyone beyond an
appointed Patriarch embraced a heresy.

> Monophysite, and Monothelite heresies. It should be mentioned that
> Rome avoided much of this, so are they the "true Church"?

Here you go again. Rome was Orthodox in those days, so yes, the true
Church resided within the Roman Patriachate, as well as in the majority
of Orthodox faithful in the East.

>>Once again, you find a speck of error in an individual Orthodox
>>and pretend this excuses the heretical forest in the Protestant back
>>yard, a forest which is embraced and cultivated by the majority of your
>>faithful.
>
>
> But I have never been in a Protestant Church which claimed to be the
> one and only Church with the "fullness of truth."

But you earlier said you accept the Nicene Creed. Have you ever read
it? Explain this line, please:

"And we believe... In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

This doesn't say, "We believe in a bunch of Churches, without any
Apostolic succession, and none more true than any other."

>>At the very least, Orthodox take heresy and proper doctrine
>>seriously, unlike your apparent position where maintaining consistent
>>doctrines that don?t contradict earlier doctrines, especially regarding
>>salvation, is unimportant. You make Christ?s ministry a frivolous
>>affair, forever lost in the past.
>
>
> Well, for an organization which takes heresy "seriously", it has had a
> lot of it!

No, it hasn't. The funny thing is, I lurked around here a couple of
years ago and you were quite active with this fallacious BS about these
heresies in the Orthodox Church. I came back a few months ago and I see
you haven't *learned* any better. It demonstrates to me that your only
interest is an endless harangue rather than reasonable thinking.

>>What a sad life that makes for a
>>modern Protestant who doesn?t know any better. (And the reality is that
>>they don?t know any better; they?ve been brainwashed into thinking they
>>are practicing the original Christianity when the evidence is lacking,
>>and in many instances shows otherwise.)
>
>
> I would say the same of the Orthodox. Orthodoxy is not the same as
> the first century Church.

Cyberspace type is cheap. Researching and providing substantive
evidence is mighty hard when the facts aren't there. You admitted in a
roundabout way earlier today that the Orthodox Church is an evolved
Church from the Paulist era, and now here you are back to your old
habits. Harangue, deflect, dodge, and unload worthless opinion. That
would be the Learner's dance :-)))))

>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<fW%6d.48827$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>11) Theology of icons is a false doctrine. They dishonor Christ
>>because first century writer XYZ sez so.
>>
>>(Learner?s quote: ?Where is the proof of this? Does the Church have any
>>first century
>>icons??)
>>
>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>Icons are typically made of wood, so they don?t survive well over time.
>> It?s to be expected that the small number of Christians in the
>>beginning would make finding such evidence even more difficult.
>
>
> But we have artifacts from many ancient civilizations which survived
> an even longer period! If icons were such an important part of
> Orthodoxy, then why are there no ancient icons? In spite of times of
> persecution, there were early Christians who owned houses, slaves, and
> traveled to different countries. Some early Christians had signet
> rings and other jewelry, but for some reason these same people could
> not own even the simplest of icons? Why is it that none of these
> people some much as wrote a few lines mentioning the making, or use of
> icons in their texts?

I think this has already been adequately explained to you. Iconography
didn't drop out the sky one day. It developed over time as a fuller
understanding of the Incarnation was achieved. The early Christian
community was small, and considering its reconciling the old Law with
the Incarnation, it took time for the concept of icons to catch on.
It's not surprising at all that a signet ring has lasted the centuries
better than a piece of wood.

>>Nevertheless, you?re making the fallacious argument that absence of
>>evidence is evidence of absence. You ask for written accounts, it?s
>>provided, and then you demand a physical specimen.
>
>
> Where is the written evidence? The account of the Edessa cloth, a
> myth that evolved over time?

I provided you the written evidence earlier. This is another of your
dishonest tactics. You demand written evidence, you write it off as
myth and demand a specimen. Whatever.

>>I?ve got a task for
>>you? Show me Christ?s bones. Many people write he?s a mythical
>>character, so show me the bones. And do you have a 3nd century BC book
>>of Exodus? I suppose you?ll deny it existed in that era since one isn?t
>>available?
>
>
> Bad analogy. If icons were as important to the early Church, as they
> are to the Orthodox today, we would find at least one, wouldn't you
> think?

Bad reasoning. I've already explained to you that icons were NOT as
important in the early Church. What is your problem?

I also want an answer... do you deny the existence of the book of Exodus
in the third century BC because no copy exists today?

>>The Bible is nothing more than an icon in black and white, and the cross
>>hanging in your Nondenom warehouse is nothing more than an unpainted
>>icon. It?s a symbol that communicates doctrine.
>
>
> Both the Bible and symbols are uninterpreted facts. We give them
> meaning.

You give them meaning in context of the education you were given. The
human brain is not a blank slate.

>>Furthermore, universal
>>literacy is a recent luxury in human history, and icons performed a
>>critical role in communicating doctrines and Scripture, as well as
>>provided examples of humans throughout the history of the Faith who
>>lived pious lives and thereby teaching us that such a life is possible.
>
>
> Perhaps, but that does not defend the claim that they existed in the
> early Church.

>> Icons act as a reinforcement of proper living.
>
>
> How?

By serving as reminders to a life of prayer, repentance, and worship.
They illustrate important periods in the lives of Christ, the Apostles,
the Prophets, and the saints. They remind us that others have suffered
and overcame.

>>By denying icons, you are denying the Incarnation of God in Christ.
>
>
> Nonsense! One could also say that by not bowing to a Vishnu statue,
> you also deny the incarnation of God.

Nonsense. Vishnu is a false god. Christ isn't. You do indeed deny the
Incarnation because the root reason you reject icons is you've been
taught a Sunday school understanding of graven images and Christ's
relation to the old Law.

>>The Hebraic peoples were given the commandment to not create graven images?
>>why? Because at that time God?s divinity was not manifest in physical
>>form.
>
>
> Really, who wrestled with Jacob?

It was a prophetic vision.

>>No doctrine says you have to maintain an icon, or kiss it or whatever, but
>>it?s a heresy to label such actions as idolatry.
>
>
> Really? You should study your religion a bit more closely.
>
> "We salute the venerable images. We anathematize those who do not do
> so.
> Anathema to those who presume to apply to the venerable images the
> things said in Holy Scripture of idols. Anathema to those who do not
> salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the
> sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say Christians turn to the
> sacred images as to gods."
>
> Do your homework.

This is a partial quote from the canon, but it'll do. I stand by what I
posted: "No doctrine says you have to maintain an icon, or kiss it or
whatever, but it's a heresy to label such actions as idolatry." The
caveat is the second half of the sentence.

If you read the entire conciliar decision, you'd understand "clearly"
that Christ was an icon of God, and the concept of icons cannot be
separated from the Incarnation. It's regarded that a rejection of icons
is in fact a rejection of the Incarnation, and based on a perverse
understanding of "idolatry." The entirety of the document
(http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-165.htm) is directed at
correcting erroneous understandings of idolatry and the Incarnation.
Your hostile Baptist attitude towards icons is based on... what?
Iconoclasm. That is what is being anathemized. If one is an Orthodox
Christian, and has a proper understanding of what an icon *is*, it
doesn't make sense that they'd refuse to show deference to the images of
Christ, the saints, etc in the parish, unless he clings to an erroneous
understanding of graven images. There can be various forms of
displaying this deference, other than "saluting", or kissing, or
whatever. It's the mindset you possess in approaching icons that is
important. Again, you're very superficial in the way you read things.

Probably about half of my parish (including myself) doesn't make the
rounds to the icons with the usual bowing and kisses. There's no icon
police making anyone do anything. And none of us are anathemized.

BTW, not all Protestants agree with your Iconoclastic tendencies. The
Lutherans criticized and rejected the Iconoclasm of Calvinism. A joint
Lutheran-Orthodox statement in Helsinki reaffirmed this position on the
part of Lutherans:

"The Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787,
which rejected iconoclasm and restored the veneration of icons in the
churches, was not part of the tradition received by the Reformation.
Lutherans, however, rejected the iconoclasm of the 16th century, and
affirmed the distinction between adoration due to the Triune God alone
and all other forms of veneration. Through historical research this
council has become better known. Nevertheless it does not have the same
significance for Lutherans as it does for the Orthodox. Yet, Lutherans
and Orthodox are in agreement that the Second Council of Nicaea confirms
the christological teaching of the earlier councils and in setting forth
the role of images (icons) in the lives of the faithful reaffirms the
reality of the incarnation of the eternal Word of God, when it states:
"The more frequently, Christ, Mary, the mother of God, and the saints
are seen, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for
those who serve as models, and to pay these icons the tribute of
salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full
adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to
the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the
honored and life?giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels
and to other sacred objects" (Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea)."

> No one in the NT or in earliest Christianity venerated icons. So by
> declaring those who do not anathema, Orthodoxy irrevocably cut itself
> apart from early Christianity, and made itself something very
> different. This is true with other doctrines too, but in this one
> where the difference is very obvious.

More of your learned, unsubstantiated BS. You've not provided any
evidence that "earliest Christianity", whatever vague time frame that is
supposed to cover, didn't venerate icons. Nor have you shown that with
any other doctrines.

>>?He is the image (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God, the firstborn
>>over all creation.? ? Colossians 1:15
>
>
> Yes, but how do you derive the doctrine of the veneration of icons
> from this? Do we really know what Jesus looked like? Do you think it
> possible that, at one point in time, that an unclean spirit [assuming
> such things exists] inspired an iconographer to "write" an icon for
> veneration?

Yes, this passage is a part of the source of the doctrine.

Do we know what Christ looked like? I doubt it. But that doesn't stop
Prots from using imagery from the idolatrous Orthodox icons as a
template for the pictures of Jeezus in their brochures and the actors in
their Passion plays.

>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> Learner

[Robb Hogg]

"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...

> The Church makes different claims concerning their Bishops. St.
> Ignatius taught [Smyrnaeans, 8:1,2, p. 93] that the purpose of a
> Bishop, and his authority, was to guarantee the teachings of the "true
> Church". How then did these men fall into heresy? Where was the Holy
> Spirit when Nestorius, Eudoxius, Macedonius, Acacius, Sergius, and
> Pyrrhus were Patriarchs of Constantinople?
>
> Clearly, the "line" [assuming that one existed in the first place] was
> broken many times from the Apostles to the present time and the reason
> for having Bishops in the first place [to guarantee the teachings of
> the "true Church"], was an obvious failure since it was the Bishops
> who led the Church into nearly every heresy.
>
> Learner

There's a logical fallacy here, of division. Because it is the purpose of
the class of bishops to guarantee the teachings of the true church, it
doesn't follow that each individual bishop will remain free from heresy.
Where was the Spirit when those men fell into error? He was in the Church
and her other bishops, who removed those men from office precisely for
teaching error.

Robb

[YoungBeliever]

Joe, thank you for stepping in and taking the time with these patient,
thoughtful, and helpful answers. I do not expect you to change the minds of
those who have not learned anything from previous, similar exchanges, but at
least you provide a record that the arguments and questions have been
answered quite thoroughly.

<snip>

>
> > Also, the work of the Holy Spirit is very difficult to see in the
> > Church Councils For example, Chalcedon in 451 specifically amended the
> > decision of the First Council of Ephesus in 431 [which had condemned
> > Nestorianism]and recognized the claims of Antioch theology [Nestorius'
> > view] and specifically rejected the central doctrine of Alexandrine
> > christology [Cyril's view] which had dominated the two councils of
> > Ephesus.
> >
> > Therefore, the Patriarch Nestorius, who was condemned in 431 and 449,
> > would have been able to subscribe completely to the formulation of
> > faith laid down at Chalcedon in 451, to which Cyril, the leading
> > spirit at Ephesus I, could have subscribed only with open or secret
> > reservations, and to which Dioscorus, the leading spirit at Ephesus II
> > could not have subscribed at all.
> >
> > Where was the Holy Spirit in all of this? Another problem is the
> > argument by fiat - that is, any outcome, of any dispute, could be
> > pinned on the Holy Spirit.

Yet in all of this, all these agreed about the nature of the The Church, a
real presence in the Eucharist, and they are all liturgical, definately not
similar to any modern Protestant cult. These were in-house debates about
what the teaching of One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church should be.
There is no "sola scriptura, sola fide" group, there is no-one questioning
the real presence, there is no-one championing some invisible, universal,
phantom church at these councils because there was no controversy or
disagreement about those issues.

<>snip

> > Perhaps. But there were Canons of Scripture prior to Nicea including
> > the Muratorian Canon, the Canon of Origen, the Canon Of Eusebius, and
> > the Canon of Cyril Of Jerusalem. Give or take a couple of books, they
> > were very similar. Therefore, it appears that the early Church knew
> > what the Scripture were. In fact, Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of
> > Carthage, who lived on opposite ends of the Empire, agreed upon and
> > defended the canonicity of the 4 Gospels.

Yet when there were questions or disagreements about the Canon, all looked
to the authority of The Church to decide because that is the only context
from which any Canon could be established.

<snip>

> The Didache isn't an all-comprehensive document of the Church's
> practices and beliefs, nor does it claim to be such. Furthermore, it
> says nothing that contradicts Orthodox teaching. It's an edifying
> document, though not all-inclusive. It doesn't prohibit infant baptism
> (as modern-day Baptists do) nor does it prohibit those other items you
> enumerated. In the Didache, there is no Trinity, no divinity of Christ,
> no crucifixion, no resurrection, no sola scriptura, and most certainly
> no “once saved/always saved” theology. Which one of those items are you
> ready to dump because of your loyalty to the authority of the Didache?
> You want to hold this document up as a complete laundry list of early
> Christian doctrines against the Orthodox camp, while in turn excusing
> yourself from the same standard. Nice.

Very well put.

<snip>

> > The Orthodox Church has a grave epistemological crisis - how can the
> > poor average Orthodox Church member "know" what the Church teaches?
> > The Church gives us an undefined, and often contradictory, "Tradition"
> > which is supposed to be the product of the Holy Spirit.

Hmmm... I am not concerned, I've never heard anyone in the Orthodox Church
express concern about this, so it must not be much of a crisis. Most
controversy I've encountered is about ecumenical and political issues.
Everyone is united about The Church, Tradition, Scripture etc.

Thank you again Joe,

the sinner
patrick

[Joe Orthodox]

YoungBeliever wrote:
> Joe, thank you for stepping in and taking the time with these patient,
> thoughtful, and helpful answers. I do not expect you to change the minds of
> those who have not learned anything from previous, similar exchanges, but at
> least you provide a record that the arguments and questions have been
> answered quite thoroughly.
>

No problem, Patrick. It was about time I oiled the big guns anyway.
The last time I went through this routine, it was with a major league
troll at Beliefnet last year.

A couple of years ago, I remember a few thoughtful individuals, Leonidas
and Fr. Whiteford come to mind (too bad I don't see them around
anymore), trying to dialogue with Learner and it was the same tactical
quicksand - if a bad Orthodox does wrong, the "entire" Church is rotten;
if we say the Church believes in the real presence, then the existence
of a unitary Church is denied. That, among other not-so-sly maneuvers.
His problem isn't really just with Orthodox and Catholics, but with
other Protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans who agree with the OC on
many issues such as icons, the real presence, salvation, etc. It's no
wonder that many of them don't like being identified as Protestants
because of the antics from the Calvinist side.

[James]

Hi Joe

Just thought I'd drop by (guess it's been over a year now) to see for
myself. You've presented the Orthodox position beautifully. It's clear
to all that Learner's position is based upon misunderstanding and
ignorance of the Church and "mere" Christianity as it were. Well done, Bud!

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<TJg7d.75644$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> >>3a) The guys who wrote the Bible belonged to a Church that no longer
> >>exists, which has no connection to the Orthodox Church.

> > Yes, and there is an Episcopal Church down the street that was built

> > in the 1700's. Are they the really same Church today in terms of
> > belief and practice, as when the Church was founded?

> No, because they're no longer in apostolic succession and they've
> embraced teachings that go against the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

That is an answer but, sadly, it is not an answer to the issue at
hand. My response had nothing to do with whether or not Anglican
apostolic succession is valid. The point is that an institution can
evolve while keeping its historical name.

> > But this is not the case. Historains have recognized, since the time
> > of Professor Bauer [who Al sited] that the terms "Orthodoxy" and
> > "Heresy" to not accurately represent the circumstances of the first
> > centuries of Christianity. During this time, there was far more
> > diversity in belief than in later periods, and perhaps even more
> > diversity than exists today. Many people would have been expelled from
> > the church after the Nicene Council, who in earlier times would have
> > peacefully worshipped together with those who disagreed since.
>
> First of all, you are again making unsubstantiated claims. You've
> provided no evidence that: they worshipped peacefully together (in fact,
> history shows this is not true; the purpose of the Councils was to
> restore unity because of fighting factions over doctrine), and more
> diversity of belief existed than today.

This is goes beyond your normal habit of answering a different
question, rather than the issue at hand. This response involves the
problem of reading comprehension. I am referring to the First Century
Church, not 4th century (and later) Church which evolved under the
influence of Byzantine politics.

> St. Paul writes, "Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the
> truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are
> upsetting the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:17-18)" This is in direct
> reference to the Gnostic heretical belief that Christians are already
> resurrected.

So, thank you for proving my point! There were a number of different
groups who held different opinions about who Jesus was and what he
taught. And these differences continued until the politics of
Byzantium hammered them out.

> In 2 Peter 3:14-16, we read, "Therefore, beloved, looking forward to
> these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and
> blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is
> salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom
> given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking
> in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,
> which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as
> they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

> These passages, among others, indicate "clearly" that the concept of
> right belief and wrong belief existed in the early Church. Your
> unsubstantiated claims don't stand.

Which, once again, is not the issue. These passages also indicate
that were a number of different groups who held different opinions
about who Jesus was and what he taught.

It is also interesting to note that Paul's Epistles [which were the
earliest NT Scriptures] say nothing of the virgin birth.

> > The term "Orthodoxy," is an inadequate one. It is currently used to
> > define the group which enforced its beliefs on others in later times -
> > effectivel pushing its rivals out of the picture. Orthodoxy, after
> > winning the political struggle in Byzantium, then attempted to justify
> > its doctrines and beliefs by refering to earlier writers who held
> > positions which, while if not entirely compatible with theirs, could
> > be interpreted as kind of close.
>
> More unsubstantiated opinions, without reference. You can't point out
> any Orthodox doctrine that was ever rejected by the majority of Church
> Fathers.

Which is rather obvious. Church Fathers were selected because they
supported one, or another, beliefs of the Byzantine Imperial Church.
It was a simple case of backward reckoning, or "cherry picking" quotes
which supported a given belief.

However, there are some gems among these writtings. For example, St.
Epiphanius of Salamis said in his letter to Theodosius:

"Which of the ancient fathers ever painted an image of Christ and
placed it in a church or private house? What ancient bishop ever
dishonoured Christ by painting him on door curtains?"

> > The earlier Church Fathers which could be used in such a way, were are
> > "Proto-Orthodox." The Church Fatherswho could not be so used in for
> > the Church's purposes of the moment were relegated to the category of
> > "Heresy," which is meaningful only in regard to historical
> > development, and consequently has nothing to do with "purity" or
> > "impurity" of doctrine. The Church never really made an official list
> > of Church Fathers because, even among those whom the Church accepts,
> > there is a mixture of "truth" and "falsehoods" in their works. So the
> > Church "cherry picks" what it wants from these documents.
>
> This fallacious reasoning was corrected in my original post. There
> isn't such a thing as a "heretical" Church Father and an "orthodox" one.

What about Origen or Tertullian?

> There are Church Father writings that have heretical elements and
> ideas, but such heretical material does not constitute the majority of
> Patristic writing. You've not substantiated your claims with any
> examples of a doctrine condemned as heretical by conciliar decision,
> while the heretical idea was embraced by the majority of Patristic
> writers. This scenario doesn't exist.

Once again you dodge the issue by raising another issue.

The "filter" which determined the "truth" of Orthodoxy was the 4th
century Byzantine State. Emperor Constantine, and his successors,
picked a faction to form his Imperial Church.

The state sponsored works of these "Fathers" are fairly consistent
(except perhaps for Gregory of Nyssa dabbling with extreme
Universalism), and they looked to the ancient fathers (ie Polycarp),
when it suited their agenda, while they called others heretics (ie
Origen).

The Orthodox Church begins with the 4th century "Fathers", and looks
back to the writings of the early Church for support. This is nothing
more than an argument in search of a conclusion.

> > The Constitution is different today. There have been numerous
> > Amendments added, which would probably shock those who wrote the
> > original document. The interpretation of the Constitution has also
> > changed - such as the "right" of abortion being "found" in the 4th
> > Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
>
> You fail to grasp the counter-example. The Constitution remains the
> same. Your reasoning says because it is different and has evolved, it
> is no longer the Constitution. This is fallacious thinking.

Wrong. Both the text and interpretation of the Constitution would
most likely shock the authors of the original text. The Constitution
is not the same as the one penned in the 18th century, although both
have the same name.

> > But are they the same 2000 years ago as today? What about the Church
> > in Rome, which was also mentioned? I think that you are comparing
> > apples to grapes.
>
> You're comparing a two year old with his fifty year old self and denying
> there is a connection because the old man is bald, though wiser.

Once again, this does not address the issue at hand. The Orthodox
Church does not compare itself to a two year old. The Orthodox Church
claims that it is the "true Church" that can trace its doctrines,
beliefs and practices back to the Apostles and, ultimately, to Jesus
Christ. The Orthodox Church believes that it has preserved the
Apostolic faith without change or corruption. This is clearly not the
case and the Orthodox argument collapses under the weight of the
contradiction in its own self-definition.

> > The first century Didache shows us how far the Orthodox Church is from
> > these early Churches. In the Didache there is no baptism of infants,
> > no veneration of Mary or the saints, no icons, no "real presence", and
> > Bishops were married men who were elected by their congregations.

> The Didache doesn't say bishops were married men; it says they are to
> have one wife.

Once again, this is an answer, but not to the issue at hand. How do
you pervert the language of a Bishop having one wife to the
requirement that they have no wife? Why does your Church twist Paul's
words? Perhaps he was talking about your Church in the
afore-mentioned quotes!

> You've been corrected on this Didache harangue already, and demonstrate
> again a profound desire to ignore what has been written. I'll
> cut-n-paste my response as I promised you I'd do when you pretend that
> an answer wasn't provided:

You have "corrected" me? You have yet to answer a single issue!
Second, do you accuse anyone who questions your Church of a
"harangue"? Why is it that moral implications must be made for those
who question your Church?

> The Didache isn't an all-comprehensive document of the Church's
> practices and beliefs, nor does it claim to be such. Furthermore, it
> says nothing that contradicts Orthodox teaching. It's an edifying
> document, though not all-inclusive.

Once again, you are answering a claim that wasn't made. I never said
that the Didach was "all-comprehensive". What I find amazing is that
many "pillars" of Orthodoxy, such as the "real presence", icons, and
veneration of the Saints are conspicuously absent in the Didache.
These are not minor issues.

> It doesn't prohibit infant baptism (as modern-day Baptists do) nor does it
> prohibit those other items you enumerated.

It doesn't prohibit the baptism of dogs and cats either. However, if
you read the Didace and the Bible in context, infants are not the
proper object of baptism.

Now, I know the "knee jerk" Orthodox apologetic that the Book of Acts
describes the baptism of families which may, or may not, have included
infants [argument from silence], therefore infants are proper objects
of baptism. The problem arises when we read this in context.

'Households' were baptized in several cases: the households of
Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus and Stephanas. (Acts
10:48; 11:14; 16:14, 32-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). The best Orthodox
argument [which is quit sad] for infant baptism is that small babies
MAY [emphasis mine] have been member of those families, and therefore,
were also baptized.

The first thing that I notice in these passages is that 'hearing the
word,' 'embracing the word heartily' and 'repenting' precedes baptism
(Acts 2:14, 22, 38, 41). Second, baptism requires that an individual
makes a decision to be baptized. Clearly, one must be of age to
hear, to believe and to make a decision.

But [if we read the passages in context], the members of Cornelius'
family heard the word,received the holy spirit, spoke in tongues, and
glorified God. How can an infant do any of these things? (Acts
10:44-46)

Another case was Lydia, who was "a worshiper of God, ... and the Lord
opened her heart wide to pay attention to the things spoken by Paul."
(Acts 16:14) The Philippian jail guard had to "believe on the Lord
Jesus," which implies that the others in his family also had to
believe in order to be baptized. (Acts 16:31-34)

Crispus and "all his household," 'became ***believers*** in the
Lord.' (Acts 18:8). Infants are not capable of belief.

All of these passage associate baptism with hearing, believing and
glorifying God - things that infants cannot do. In Acts 8, the people
at Samaria "heard and believed" the good news and were baptized. The
Scriptures specify that those baptized were "men and women" - not
infants.

> ***Thjis issues seems akin to the protestant heresy of "the rapture"
> which is based on what the Bible does not say rather than what it
> actually does say.

Once again, instead of answering the issue at hand, you go off on a
diversion.

The "heresy" of "the rapture" predates Protestantism. Hermas taught
that believers would escape the future great tribulation period
(Hermas, Shepherd of Hermas, Book I, Vision IV, Chapter 2), and
Irenaeus, wrote:

"And therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up
from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not
been since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last
contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are
crowned with incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V,
Chapter 29).

This "shoot from the hip" attitude towards Christian teachings is one
of the major reasons that I left the Orthodox Church. Little wonder
that men such as Nestorius reached the highest ranks of your Church.

> In the Didache, there is no Trinity, no divinity of Christ,
> no crucifixion, no resurrection, no sola scriptura, and most certainly

> no ?once saved/always saved? theology. Which one of those items are you

> ready to dump because of your loyalty to the authority of the Didache?
> You want to hold this document up as a complete laundry list of early
> Christian doctrines against the Orthodox camp, while in turn excusing
> yourself from the same standard. Nice.

Christian doctrine evolved over time - this has always been my
contention. I do not believe that the Church today is the same as the
one which existed 2000 years ago. The problem is that Orthodoxy makes
such a claim. So how do you handle the fact that in the earliest
Scriptures - Paul's Epistles and the Gospel of Mark, there is not
mention of the virgin birth?

> The Didache?s description of the Eucharist with various symbols isn?t

> incompatible with Orthodox theology, which states that the elements are
> real AND symbolic. There can be many ways of describing the bread and
> wine in metaphorical language though the objects in question are the
> real blood and body of Christ; much like poetry uses metaphorical
> language to express the mysteries of real objects like trees and stars.

Once again, this is not an answer.

Nowhere does the Didach even suggest that the bread is the literal
body of Christ, or even compares it to the body of Christ. The Didache
compares the bread made by gathering scattered grains to the Church,
which is gathered into the Kingdom of God from all over the earth.
That is an amazing difference between the Didache and the body-blood
sacrifice of the Orthodoxy liturgy.

Consequently this meal is not sacrifice, but a thanksgiving, which is
why it
was called a Eucharist. In Orthodoxy this thanksgiving, this
demonstration
of the life of the church, has changed into something quite different.

It is also significant that the Didach Eucharist is a REAL MEAL, not
some sort
of little bite of bread and spoon of wine. This meal was not
originally a "magic" ritual, but was a meal of communion of those in
the church, and people could eat their fill.

> Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that
> Protestants have dismissed.

Once again, this is an attack, not an answer. By the way, how do you
know that Protestants do not fast? Perhaps some Protestants do fast,
but they follow Christ's instructions:

"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they
disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the
truth, they have received their reward in full."

I see little difference between the legalism of Orthodox fasting
during Lent and Rammadan, or with the hypocrites that Jesus mentioned.

> Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in addition to references to the
> Church, unbroken continuous visible forms of the Church which you've
> dismissed as nonsensical.

So a Bishop of the Church which used the Didache would recognize your
Bishop? I doubt it.

> The entire Didache
> is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
> you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
> Christianity which exists only in their minds. As Newman once said, the
> farther back in history one studies, the lesser he remains a Protestant.

The Didache stands as a witness against the claim that Orthodoxy can
trace itself back to early Christianity. I have already shown that in
the Didache there is no "body and blood of Christ" Eucharist -
contrary to Orthodox practice. This fact by itself, serously calls
into question Orthodoxy's claim to be the original faith of
Christianity. But there is more. In the Didache, there is no mention
of the creation/veneration of icons - which was a later
practice. There is no baptism of infants; there is preference for
flowing water in baptism over water from a receptacle; there are
"prophets" who were later removed from church practice and are not now
found in Orthodoxy; there is no veneration of Mary; there is no
veneration of saints; there is no hierarchical appointment of bishops,
which are elected; and, there is an implied identity of bishops and
presbyters.

> The Didache (and Scripture) say a bishop should have one wife. What

> this means is that a bishop shouldn?t be remarried if his wife dies, and
> that he can?t be divorced. It does NOT mandate a bishop to be married,

> nor does it prohibit the Church from requiring bishops to be unmarried.

Huh? So being the husband of one wife *really* means being the
husband of no wife?

> And the Orthodox requirement for a bishop to be unmarried is merely a

> discipline, not a doctrine. It violates nothing in Scripture.

Really? There were married Bishops in the early Church - according to
the
Bible and Didache. There were also female Deacons, by the way. Who
gave your Church the right to change Paul's words?

> This is a perfect example of what happens when someone makes an ignorant,
> personal interpretation of Scripture. Your church leaders who are

> married more than once are breaking this rule in Scripture. It?s your

> group that has no resemblance to the early Church. In contrast, our
> priests are required to follow this Biblical injunction to not remarry.

Ignorance can often be excused. However, your Church has a problem
that goes beyond simple ignorance. The Orthodox "discipline" of
unmarried Bishops exists for economic reasons, not spiritual reasons.
Emperor Justinian's Code of Civil Law forbade anyone who had children
- or even nephews - to be consecrated a
Bishop. Clearly, there was a great deal of concern that a hereditary
leadership could emerge in the Church and measures were taken to
prevent this from happening.

However, times have changed. The threat of a father passing the
Bishop's office to his son is unimaginable in today's Church. The
Church should return to the Biblical [and first century Church] model
of married Bishops.

Once again, why does your Church ban married men from this office?
There is a huge difference between the requirement that a Bishop must
be the husband of one wife [as Paul taught] and the requirement that a
Bishop must be the husband of no wife [as the Orthodox Church
teaches].

The answer is that both Orthodoxy and Protestantism evolved over time

and share little resemblance to early Christianity.

> > Well, the Bible also mentions the nation of Israel. Is modern Israel
> > the same as ancient Israel? Do they have the same form of government?
> > Does the average Israeli have the same religious beliefs as the
> > Israelites of 2000 years ago? If so, do they conduct sacrifices?

> Again, another repetitive fallacy of yours.

Not at all, it is an illustration of the fallacy of your beliefs. Is
the Orthodox Church today the same, at least in doctrin and teachings,
as the first Century Church? The answer is no.

> > And why do you assume, aside from simple arrogance, that this refers
> > to your Church and not others?
>
> You spend all this time thus far disparaging the Church - saying it
> didn't exist at the time of the Apostles (despite Scriptural evidence),
> to saying the Church of the Bible doesn't exist today - and now you seem
> to be edging towards the fact that the Church existed and continues to
> exist today and must be heeded as Christ commanded. This is progress...

Once again, this does not answer the question: why do you assume that
the Church mentioned in the Bible is the same as your Church? Other
Churches make the same claim, so why is yours any better than theirs?

> You need to ask yourself why Christ tells you to heed the Church. He
> tells you to seek out this authority... but authority for what? If, as
> you believe, there's no right or wrong doctrine, then why does Christ
> order you to do as the Church tells you? Think carefully about it, as
> it's very important.

Once again, you dodge the question. Why do you assume that your
Church is the one that Christ is talking about?

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<9Jh7d.76062$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

The original issue was:

> >>3b) The Church didn't exist when the Bible was wrote.

> > Are they really the same Chruches in terms of belief and doctrine?

> In a sense, yes. The doctrines that were codified at a later date were
> merely a fleshing out of beliefs held by early Christians and in
> Scripture because disputes arouse about the implications of various
> teachings of the Church. These fleshed out doctrines do not contradict
> these earlier teachings, which can't be said about Protestant doctrines.

Really? Then did the first Century Christians make/venerate icons?

> > Well, if these Churches were "the pillar and foundation of the truth"
> > then why did Paul have to write so many letters correcting their false
> > beliefs and practices? Where was the "true Church"? Was it in
> > Galacia or in Corinth?

> You again confuse a few sinful individuals with the Church as a whole.
> The true Church was in the entire organization that was constituted by
> Corinth and the other Churches.

OK, so when the Church does something wrong, then it is the fault of
'individuals'? This is the logical fallacy of "unattainable
perfection".
Your argument is similar to the arguments made by Muslims on campus:
Islam is the perfect system. However, when anyone points to the
Islamic Republics of Pakistan or Iran to illustrate that Islam is not
perfect, the Muslims respond: if it is flawed, it is not "true Islam".

> You're committing the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Your reasoning
> is proven wrong by counter-examples...
>

> ?Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Assembly of God can't be
> Christ's Church.?

> ?Baptists sold slaves. An institution that buys and sells humans,
> foments racism against blacks, and lynches minorities can't be Christ's
> Church. I certainly can?t follow such a person?s teachings on sola
> scriptura.?

Uh, no. Bakker and the Baptists never claimed that their
organizations were the one and only "true Church" .

> The truth is that many despicable people believe and trust in the Holy

> Spirit, the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ but it doesn?t have any

> relevance on the merits of those doctrines. If you want perfect people

> to illustrate Christ?s doctrines, then you?re in for a major
> disappointment. Your tactic is one of ?tar and smear? individuals for

> being fallen slobs, while in turn you have little to nothing to offer in
> refutation of the doctrines in question. Scripture tells us that tares
> will be found among the wheat, and that His Church would endure
> tribulations. But of course, these passages mean nothing for a cherry

> pickin? Protestant who can?t make sense of the entirety of Scripture

> without ignoring half of it at the instruction of Brother Billy Bob, who
> of course leads a sinless life.

But this is impossible in Orthodoxy since: "Orthodoxy believes and

proclaims that the complete and integral faith delivered to the saints
by Jesus Christ has been preserved without alteration or diminution

only within the communion of the Orthodox Church." And: Orthodoxy
believes that the eternal truth of God's revelation in Jesus Christ is
preserved in its full integrity in the living tradition of the Church,
under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

> > Once again, the Churches that Paul wrote to are very different than
> > what the Orthodox Church is, and believes, today.

> You haven't provided any information that demonstrates how those
> Churches believed anything that contradicts Orthodox doctrines today.

From the earliest records [the Didache], the early Christians made no
mention of the bread and wine becoming the "real presence" of the body
and blood of Jesus, and the Church of the Didache had Communion as a

meal in which
believers were "filled".

According to the Didache - which prescribed worship, there was no
mention of the veneration of Mary or the saints and no icons.

Next unanswered question:

> >>4) A few bad people (or people teaching errors) in an organization
> >>invalidate the legitimacy of the organization and its doctrines.

> > Jim Baker was a member of the Assemblies of God. Second, Jim Baker

>
> Ok, how about this... "Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Assembly
> of God can't be Christ's Church."

It probably isn't.

> It's the same fallacious reasoning you are employing.

Not at all, I don't believe that there is, or ever was, a one "true
Church."

> > was a profiteer who never claimed to be the true Church. Jim Baker
>
> Untrue. He and all Protestants claim to belong to the true Church, they
> just describe it as an invisible body, which runs counter the the
> Bible's description of it.

Really? Then which Church deserves to be called the "Bride of
Christ"? Certainly not yours!

Also, is the Orthodoxy consistent on this issue [or any other, for
that matter]?

For example, Theophylact Gorskii calls the Church "the assembly of
true believers and saints, rightly called together by the preaching of
the divine word to attain eternal life through the great goodness of
God. Only those really belong to the Church who possess the true
faith, by which they are united with Christ the Head. Hence they are
called members of the Body of Christ, so that the wicked, the
unbelieving and hypocrites are certainly excluded from membership."

This is much closer to the idea of the "invisible Church" than to the
idea of the Church being a visible, hierarchical institution. It is
common that when one asks two Orthodox a question, that they receive
three answers!

> > did not have the economic and military support of the U.S. government
> > to enforce his edicts - as the Orthodox Churches of Byzantium and
> > Russia had. In fact, the modern Russian Orthodox Church owns a slice
> > of the oil monopoly and once controlled the cigarette monopoly. The
> > Russian government defends and supports the Russian Orthodox Church's
> > corruption, the American government threw Jim Baker in jail. Bad
> > analogy!
>
> You again throw our irrelevant side information... it's called poisoning
> the well. Baptists once controlled the cotton trade in the South
> through save labor.

Individuals, or the Church and its leaders?

> > Yes, there were Baptists who sold slaves. As did Catholics,
> > Anglicans, Methodists, and [since there was a Greek community in New
> > Orleans] possibly even an Orthodox Catholic, or two.

> > However, did the Baptist Church [or any other Church], as an
> > institution, own slaves and oppose their emanicipation? The Southern

> Yes, they did. Southern Baptist ministers routinely used Scripture,
> your infallible source for Truth, to justify their owning of slaves.
> How can you believe in an infallible book when that book was used to
> justify slavery?

But, the question is: did the Baptist Church own slaves as the
Orthodox Church owned Serfs?

And there were also abolitionist who counter using Scripture. How
many Orthodox stood against the persecution of the Old Believers? How
many Bishops condemned the centuries of anti-Semitism and pogroms
against the Jews of Russia?

> > Baptists have worked hard for racial reconciliation - admitting the
> > sins of the past leaders.

> The same is true for Orthodox. Many bishops were denouncing the pogroms
> and other injustices under the czarist regime. You're being selective
> in cherry pickin' behaviors to illustrate a fallacious line of reasoning.

Really? When has the Orthodox Church ever apologized for its past
crimes?

> > The sad fact is that the Russian Orthodox Church owned land and Serfs.
> > Is this something that the "pillar and foundation of the truth"
> > should do? The Russian Orthodox Church systematically persecuted the
> > Old Believers. Is this the work of Christ's Church? The Russian
> > Orthodox Church, for many decades, fomented pogroms and violence
> > against the Jews of Russia. Is this something that the "pillar and
> > foundation of the truth" should do?
>
> In 1792 the Strawberry Baptist Association of Virginia urged the Baptist
> General Committee not to interfere with slavery since many of its
> members and pastors owned slaves. In South Carolina, for example,
> one-third of members and two-fifths of pastors owned slaves. Some
> areas, like Philadelphia, opposed the emancipation of slaves because of
> the impact that it would have on trade in their areas. This is a
> demonstration of Baptists, as an institution, propagating and defending
> slavery. Not only that, many of these Baptist slave owners were forcing
> their slaves to baptise their infants, a practice that Baptist were
> supposed to be against.

A silly "pot-n-kettlisms", to say the least! You are comparing
apples to oranges : a few people at a point in time, with an
institution that has, for centuries, exploited Serfs and persecuted
others whose beliefs were different.

> Enough of your pot-n-kettlisms.

OK.....

> > In fact, to moderns times, the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia sells
> > books containing excerpts of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
> > (Source:http://www.beliefnet.com/story/97/story_9754_1.html)

> The link talks about a book called "He is at the Door" by Sergei Nilus
> being sold in bookstores in Yekaterinburg. It has nothing to do with
> the Protocols.

Once again, you are so eager to provide an answer - any answer - that
your reading comprehension suffers. I did not say they were selling
the "Protocols", I said, as did the article, that they are selling a
book "containing excerpts of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion.""

> > I am not talking about the sins or shortcomings of individuals being
> > imputed to a larger organization. I am talking about an institution
> > that is, and has been, rotten to its core for centuries.
>
> That's exactly what you are doing, and it's not honest discussion on
> your part.

No, I am not talking about a few bad people. I am talking about the
Russian Orthodox Church - an organization that has systematically
exploited people for centuries.

> Enough of your pot-n-kettlisms.

OK.....

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<X3m7d.77819$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

The originial issue was:

> >>5) The Didache is an all-inclusive document on early Church doctrine.
> >>Because this document says nothing about the real presence, infant
> >>baptism, unmarried bishops, etc., therefore those teachings are false,
> >>or at least were not believed by the earliest Christians.

False. I never said that it was an "all-inclusive document". So, now
you proceed to answer issues that were not raised.

> That's the hidden premise in your argumentation. You argue Orthodox
> practice XYZ isn't in the Didache, therefore this practice wasn't held
> by early Christians. It's your task to prove the Didache provides a
> comprehensive list of early Christian practices.

I am not talking about minor issues here. The fact that the Didache
makes no mention of the "real presence", icons, or the veneration of
Saints is very significant and shows how far modern Orthodoxy has
wandered from early Christianity.

> > According to the Didache, Bishops were married men elected by the
> > congregation.

> Yes, our bishops are elected. But the Didache doesn't say bishops were
> married, nor does it say how they were elected. Quotes, please.

They are elected by whom, the people?

15:1 Elect, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of
the Lord, men who are meek and not covetous, and true and approved,
for they perform for you the service of prophets and teachers.

> > According to the Didache - which prescribed worship, there was no
> > mention of the veneration of Mary or the saints and no icons.

> Where does the Didache say it prescribed worship??? What happened to
> your earlier claim that there were differing beliefs and practices in
> the early Church? Is so, they why do you old this singular document up
> with such importance?

Read it! Notice phrases such as : 10:1 "But after it has been
completed, so pray ye." and 6:1 "See that no one make thee to err
from this path of doctrine, since he who doeth so teacheth thee apart
from God."

> This proves what I wrote above, that you grant this work a status of
> comprehensiveness that is unwarranted. The Didache says nothing that
> contradicts Orthodox practice and doctrine. It doesn't say Christians
> didn't venerate Mary or the saints or icons. It doesn't prohibit such
> practices. You also <sigh> again, look for a lack of Orthodox practices
> while failing to notice the absence of your own.

So, whatever the Didache doesn't say is therefore permitted? The
Didache doesn't say that people didn't pray to Shiva, or that dogs and
cats were forbidden baptism. You are building your faith [or really
defending your idol - the Church] based on the argument from silence.

> > Yes, it does prohibit infant baptism!

> Where? Quote, please.

See below.

> > "But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and
> > whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or
> > two days before.."
>
> This prohibits infant baptism no more than it prohibits those who have
> health problems like diabetes or elderly in weak health who can't fast.
> Use some common sense fer cryin' out loud. The Church isn't a
> heartless, legalistic body. Scripture tells us that entire households
> were baptised at the same time. It didn't say babies were to excluded.

It doesn't say that infants were baptized either! Since infant
baptism is an important part of Orthodoxy, in fact those who oppose it
are cursed, I find it odd that there is no mention of infant baptism
in the Didache!

> > How many infants would last 24-48 hours without food?

> I take it you don't have any children. Any healthy infant can withstand
> that period of time without food,

So, how many responsible parents would intentionally starve their
children for 24-48 hours? You twist all logic and reason to defend
your idol - the Orthodox Church!

> though I don't believe that infants
> were ever required to fast before baptism, just as today they are not
> required to confess before communion even though canon law says Orthodox
> are supposed to do such.

On what basis do you "believe" this? On the preconceptions that your
Church has imposed on you? On the plain and simple text of the
Didache? Where does it say such a thing? Remember what the Didache
does say: 6:1 "See that no one make thee to err from this path of
doctrine, since he who doeth so teacheth thee apart from God."

> By the way, my daughter didn't eat for almost two days after being born
> because of swallowing problems. The doctors said it was just fine and
> it happens all the time.

But would you intentionally starve her for 24-48 hours? You argument
reminds me of the Muslim defense of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old
girl since, according to them, some girls have early menses!

> What's most amusing is that you quote this part of the Didache and yet
> you somehow ignore the fact that Baptists reject fasting altogether.
> How many Baptists fast for 1-2 days before baptism?????

I don't know. Perhaps when they fast, they follow Christ's words and
do not make a public issue about it.

> >>In the Didache, there is no Trinity,

> That's not the doctrine of the Trinity as illustrated in the Nicene
> Creed. That just names three things without explaining the relationship.

Which is also what Scripture does. Coining terms such as "Trinity"
and making silly analogies [such as the old water-ice-steam analogy]
undermines the teachings of the Bible by attempting to define an
infinite God in finites terms and analogies.

> > "Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God
> > (Son) of David!"
>
> The translations don't indicate a clear divinity in Christ as we
> understand it today. The Charles H. Hoole translation mentions:

You might want to look at his translation of Didache 16:8.

> "First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy
> vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus
> Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever."

Uh, no... wrong verse. Hoole translates 10:6:

"Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of
David. If any one is holy let him come (to the Eucharist); if any one
is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen."

Going back to Hegesippus, as transmitted by Eusebius (H.E., II,
xxiii), this refers to Christ's divinity.

> In addition, what this passage indicates is that Confession was required
> to receive the Eucharist, another practice the Baptists have arbitrarily
> dumped. Again it shows how closely the Orthodox Church has maintained
> its practices from the very beginning.

Nowhere does the Didache say that we must confess our sins to a
Priest. In fact, the Didache doesn't even mention Priests!
Interesting......

> > The Didache affects my view of history because it shows what was, and
> > what was not present in the early Church.

> You're not being honest with yourself.

Sure I am.

> It doesn't show "once saved/always saved" - though you believe in it.

Not all Protestants believe in it either, the Methodists for example.

> It doesn't show sola scriptura - though you believe to it.

Sola Scriptura was an historical development - like forcing Bishops to
be unmarried. Sola Scriptura was the result of the Church's numerous
encrustations of legends, myths, and false practices on the initial
message of Christ. The Bible provides the only information on the
doctrines of early Christianity - which we cannot glean from what the
Church now calls tradition.

> It shows a hierarchy which is to
> be respected, confession, a single Church to be gathered unto the ends
> of the earth, fasting, and emphasizes the importance in the Eucharist -
> all things you demean. I don't see anything there that resembles a
> Nondenom church. In fact, this document played an important part in my
> own conversion. I'd urge you to hand it out to all your Nondenom
> friends and then explain why your practices are so different.

Once again, historical development. Your Church doesn't have Prophets
or Apostles as the early Church.

> > The Didache's view of the Eucharist is totally incompatible with
> > Orthodox theology.

> You're going to repeat the same talking points as if it wasn't already
> addressed, and I'm going to cut-n-paste the same exposure of your
> fallacious reasoning...

I repeat it because your answer is flat-out wrong.

> The Didache?s description of the Eucharist with various symbols isn?t
> incompatible with Orthodox theology, which states that the elements are
> real AND symbolic. There can be many ways of describing the bread and
> wine in metaphorical language though the objects in question are the
> real blood and body of Christ; much like poetry uses metaphorical
> language to express the mysteries of real objects like trees and stars.

In the Didache, there is no hint or mention of sacrifice and no
partaking of the body and blood of Jesus. The later Orthodox liturgy
presents the Eucharist as an "oblation," a sacrifice/offering, which
clearly identifies the chalice and bread ans the body and blood of
Jesus. In contrast, the Didache meal has none of this.

> Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that
> Protestants have dismissed.

How do you know what others do? Perhaps, unlike the Orthodox, they do
fast but do not make a public spectacle about it.

> Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in
> addition to references to the Church, unbroken continuous visible forms
> of the Church which you've dismissed as nonsensical.

And the early Church had Apostles and Prophets, so where are yours?

> The entire Didache is consistent with Orthodox theology,

Saying this over and over, doesn't make it so, Joe.

> We don't lack those offices because they, along with saints, are not
> offices in the sense of clergy. Furthermore, the Didache says:

> "15:1 Elect, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the
> Lord, men who are meek and not covetous, and true and approved, for they
> perform for you the service of prophets and teachers."

They may perform these services, but it does not say that these
offices should be abolished.

> This clearly says bishops and deacons perform the roles of prophets and
> teachers. And we do elect our bishops. The Didache says nothing about
> election by congregations.

Then who elects the Bishop?

> Prophets were not eliminated. The Didache says bishops are to perform
> the role of prophets. Also, it doesn't say anything about who conducts
> the Eucharist. Note the absence of women, children, lepers, space
> aliens, TeleTubbies, and blue-eyed carpenters in the celebration of the
> Eucharist.

Then why are there no Prophets, where does the Didache say that this
office was abolished? Is your Priest a Prophet? Also, where are the
Teachers", workers of
miracles, also those having gifts of healing in your Church?

> Our teachings and practices are consistent with the early Church and
> you've not shown one instance otherwise. I've demonstrated in abundance
> that Baptists hold practices contrary than what you see in the Didache.

Repeating something ad nauseam does not make it true. Neither the
Orthodox nor the Baptists adhere to the Didache. I have
consistently said that modern forms of Christianity are developments
out of early Christianity.

In regard to which Church incorporates more or less of the
characteristics of early Christianity, it really does not much matter,
because none of them are identical with the various forms of earliest
Christianity.

Once again, in The Didache we find no icons, no veneration of saints,
no infant baptism, in that respect Protestantism in general is closer.
There are other aspects reflected in other modern branches of
Christianity. But this really doesn't mattere since no Church can
claim to be "THE" fullness of faith, "THE" Church of the Apostles,
"THE" one and only "true Church". All are descendants, bearing some
of the traits of early Christianity, but in mixtures, with none of it
the same.

> >>The entire Didache
> >>is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
> >>you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
> >>Christianity which exists only in their minds.
> >
> >
> > The is no way one can reach this conculsion after reading the Didache.
>
> That's the exact conclusion one gets after reading the Didache. As I
> wrote before, a Protestant has to ignore half of what he reads to make
> literalist sense out of it.

See above.

> >>As Newman once said, the farther back in history one studies, the lesser he
> >>remains a Protestant.

> > Sure, Christianity itself is, relative to all of human history, a new
> > development. So, I guess the further back we go, the more Pagan we
> > become!

> His words were in reference to Christians, but of course that's not

> obvious for one who can't escape the literalist box.

Which is not the point. Protestantism is a new development in human
history, but then again, so was Christianity which has existed for
about 2,000 years.

Lerner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<Iop7d.79779$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

The original issue was:

> >>6) Imperfection in continuity (or a human being within that continuity)

> >>means continuity doesn't exist.

A claim that I never made, but let's look at the arguments against it,
or whatever random response that you generate.

> > The same can be said of any Church, including Orthodoxy. All Churches
> > are historical developments.

> There's a difference between historical development of doctrines that
> are consistent with prior doctrines and belief, and adopting new
> doctrines that contradict previous ones (or adopting those that were
> decided to be heresies by consent of the Church from across the
> Christian world). The latter is a trait of Protestants, the former of
> the Orthodox Church.

Really? How about icons, for example? The Quinisext Council admits
that icons were not used in the early Church, however Christian
symbols were present. "Having welcomed these ancient figures and
shadows as symbols of the truth passed on to the Church, today we
prefer grace and truth..."

The Second Nicene Council, also know as the seventh "Ecumenical
Council" [787 A.D.], decreed that Icons must be venerated and
invoked a curse on those who did not, or do not, follow this practice.
The final outcome of the 7th "Ecumenical Council" was the
condemnation of the early Christians simply because they did not
venerate Icons. Through this Council, the Orthodox Church cut itself
off from the traditions and beliefs of the early Church - which did
not venerate Icons.

> > The major mistake of Orthodoxy is to read later opinions back into
> > earlier times. We know that icons were a late development in the

> Uh huh, yeah right. You wouldn't be guilty of this major mistake, would
> you?

No, I would not. Can you show me where I have made such an error, or
is this yet another of your answers for the sake of saying something,
anything?

> <sigh> Here you go again, with something you *know* without any
> substantive evidence. Eusebius writes about icons in the early Church
> that were as old as the time of the Apostles (and he was hostile to the
> practice which makes him a fairly objective source). Quotes from his
> work were provided, but you pretend it wasn't. There's a big difference
> between what you *know*, and what *we* read in the written record.

Eusebius was born in the 3rd century, so how would he know? The myth
of the Edessa cloth was created by the first "orthodox" bishop of
Edessa, [Bishop Kune], who fed it to Eusebius. The purpose of this
story was derail the native Gnostic brand of Christianity in favor of
the "orthodox" Church.

When we fast-forward to the 4th century, we have the Jesus-Abgar V
connection - the Doctrine of Addai [which Eusebius did not mention].
Having an incarnation of the Word in art was another weapon against
the Nestorian heresy.

> But you continue referring to the Didache as an isolated document in a
> vacuum that expresses a unified set of practices in the ante-Nicene
> Church. Which is it? Were there unified non-Orthodox practices or were
> there a bunch of mercurial, undocumented practices which you somehow
> discovered in the 1500's?

There was a wide spectrum of beliefs in early Christianity. This is
not my opinion, but the opinion of numerous historians who are far
more intelligent than you or I.

> The funny thing is, you find evidence of everything in the early Church
> except for Orthodoxy.

There are elements of Orthodoxy there as well.

> A part of the problem is that it's like a
> dissected, half-a$$ religion that opts for the common denominator rather
> than the fullness of the Faith as practiced by Christians for almost the
> entirety of the last two thousand years.

I hope that this is not your faith speaking through you!

> Another problem for you is that these variations of early beliefs were never
> held by the majority,

How do you know this? The winners always write history.

> and the majority of Church Fathers condemned wrong beliefs as heresies

> in Ecumenical Councils....

Well duh! If they supported unpopular beliefs, then they wouldn't be
"Church Fathers" - now would they?

> >>apostolic succession is illustrated in Scripture....

Where?

> > Hmm, if "apostolic succession" is so critical, why didn't Jesus or
> > Paul explicitly require it? The one passage cited by proponents of
> > Apostolic succession is Matt. 16:18 - on which Catholics and Orthodox
> > differ greatly! Additionally, what good is Apostolic succession? The
> > Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics all claim to have it and each
> > has teachings that contradict the others. Which is correct?
>
> Provide these teachings that contradict the others. I'm not responding
> to unsubstantiated air balls.

Purgatory/no Purgatory, Toll Houses, different dates for Easter - all
derived from Tradition.

> > Second, a Bishop of the first century Church was very different from
> > what we have today. We can clearly see the evolution of Church
> > government in Pauls letters.
>
> Such evolution isn't clear at all. You presume his earlier letters
> provide summaries of all roles held by Church leaders. This is what
> happens when your only recourse is to proof-text and hyper-rationalize
> every word in Scripture without a longstanding ecclesiastical body to
> help you out with a proper context.

The evolution is crystal clear if you look at Paul's Epistles in
chronological order.

> > Paul recognized "Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers" then, workers of
> > miracles, also those having gifts of healing (1 Corinthians 12:28).
>
> This is the conflation of roles and offices among evangelicals that I've
> read in other debates. Those were not official offices in the
> hierarchy. Bishops could and did perform the role of prophet, and the
> Apostles could and some did perform the role of bishop. Eusebius writes
> (History of the Church, p. 118):

> "All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James
> himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother,
> were still alive..."

Perhaps roles overlapped, but why were all but Deacon [and there were
female deacons in the early Church] and Bishop abolished? Why are
there no female Deacons today?

> The Didache also mentions bishops performing the role of prophets in the
> Church. You're providing a list of "roles" that could be played by
> various Church offices, including regular lay persons, while at the same
> time we have evidence that bishops and deacons existed during the time
> of the Apostles. In the Didache (Chapter 15), we read about bishops and
> deacons. Some scholars guesstimate the Didache was written as early as
> 50 A.D., which puts it in the same time frame as 1 Corinthians, if not a
> bit earlier.

I didn't make this list, Paul did.

> I don't know why you would subscribe to the most mind-bending theory,
> that Christ's Apostles initiated one form of Church governance, then
> suddenly here come the bad 'ol Orthodox Catholics who wipe it out and
> institute an "incorrect tradition." Why would Christ allow the early
> Church to be set up in one form and the later Church in another?

That is not what I said. Church government evolved over time and the
Church forced Bishops to be unmarried to prevent their children from
inheriting Church property and titles - regardless of what Paul wrote
to the contrary.

> > There is no office of Bishop and certainly no succession, at to this
> > point in history.
>
> You infer absence of office XYZ because you presume 1 Corinthians
> provides a laundry list of offices, which you haven't proven. This is
> the same technique you take to the Didache.

No. We can trace both Paul's Epistles and the evolution of Church
government described in them, over the course of time. That is what
historians do.

> > In Ephesians 4:11 Paul inserts "Evangelists and Pastors" after
> > Prophets and before Teachers. A slightly different revision is made in
> > Romans 12:6-7, where Diakonia is placed before teaching as one of the
> > "gifts differing" (kharismata).
>
> Again, one can assume different roles at once - say Evangelist and
> Apostle - while holding an office, say that of bishop.

Is that what Paul wrote?

> > The Apostles were the founders of the Church. They appointed Prophets
> > and Teachers to care for the growing Church. So, Apostles, Prophets
> > and Teachers were the basic foundation of Paul's organization of the
> > Church.
>
> You don't know that. These roles were often overlapping, and didn't
> necessarily correspond to a hierarchical office in the Church.

Sure I do. Read Paul's Epistles.

> Also, there most certainly was the concept of an episcopate even before
> the birth of Christ. In the Septuagint, "episkopos" is used for
> overseer in various senses in Nehemiah 11:9, 2 Chronicles 34:12 & 17,
> Judges 9:28, Isaiah 60:17, and Numbers 4:16. In Job 20:29, God is
> referred to as episkopos. Christ is an episkopos in 1 Peter 2:25, and
> that's why today we refer to him as the Bishop over the entire Church.

Perhaps, but did this office in any way resemble that of a modern
Bishop? The Philosophy Club here at NYU has a "President", so is he
the same as George Bush?

> The episcopacy was hardly a 2nd century innovation that would have
> "shocked" 1st century Christians.

Sure. The myth of Apostolic succession first appears in a rather
immature form
in I Clement:

42:7 "So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed
their
first fruits, when they had tested them by the Spirit, to be overseers
and
deacons to to those who were to believe."

The word for "overseers" here is "episkopos," which later became
"bishop." Clement's statement is found in a etter of rebuke for which
some authority was needed. That authority was found in the myth that
authority came down through the years from Jesus through the Apostles.
Clement began the transformation of Christianity into a hierarchy
unlike the simpler arrangement found in the earlier Christianity, such
as in the Didache.

The next big step in this evolution was Ignatius, who mentions in
Magnesians 6 the "bishop presiding in the place of God." It is
Ignatius who introduced, at least in writting, the notion of a
monarchical bishop.

> "Incorrect tradition?" By whose authority did you confer that it is
> incorrect?

History.

> This is the big problem with the mindset you bring to the
> table. You'll engage in deflections and sophistry in denying Tradition
> exists (because we supposedly have no solid means of delineating true
> Traditions),

Tradition exists in a sort of nebulous, undefined way. When the
Church needs to prove a point, it cites something, or someone, and
calls it tradtion.

> in addition to denouncing the authority of the Church and
> its hierarchical structure in favor of your own authority (quote: "I
> prefer to think for myself and do not need to appeal to authority to
> support my beliefs."), and you earlier wrote the non-trivial assertion
> that even Protestants have evolved... and yet here you are speaking
> about incorrect tradition and criticizing the evolution of the governing
> structure of the Church. Earlier, you denied that the Church today
> existed at the time of Paul, now you say the Church evolved beyond the
> structure of the early Paulist period, to an incorrect tradition of
> apostolic succession in the 2nd century. You're implicitly admitting
> that the Orthodox hierarchical structure grew out of the Church of
> Paul's times.

All Churches grew out of the Churches of Paul's time! All Churches
can point back to the ancient Church to justify some of their beliefs.
However, no Church can draw a straight and unbroken line back to the
first century Church.

> The only consistent thread in your beliefs is that you've pre-decided
> that apostolic succession is bad, and any argumentative means are
> legitimate to refute it, even if these arguments contradict each other.

I didn't say it was bad. It simply was not a part of earliest
Christianity.

> It also looks to me like you read a bit more over the last day and are
> now finally adjusting your beliefs.

How so?

> A repeat of your fallacious talking points. I'll cut-n-paste my earlier
> response again...

Which still doesn't answer the question at hand!

> Your fallacious claim that reference to a few heretics in this long
> lineage proves the lineage is either non-existent or broken is shown
> false by counter-example...

If the Holy Spirit is a part of the equation, then the line is broken.

> "Because Nixon was a crook, broke the Constitution, and resigned,
> therefore, there's no continuity in the US government (or Presidency).
> There's no such thing as a continuous lineage of US Presidents. The
> process of succession for the office of President, the ultimate enforcer
> of the Law, therefore isn't important."

Bad analogy, since no one in their right mind believes the Presidency
to be a Divinely appointed office which is always guided by the Holy
Spirit. In fact, most people assume that Presidents are liars and
crooks. Every President in my lifetime could easily be prosecuted for
war crimes.

> This is the illogical nonsense that you continuously throw out. Those
> few heretics were booted out, denounced, and the office that they
> occupied continued on as it had since the Apostles.

Often long after the fact. The unanswered question is : where was the
Holy Spirit when this was going on?

> > Another problem for the "true believerism" of Orthodoxy is Mark 9:38
> > (also Luke 9:50):
>
> It's a problem? How? If others use Christ's name and bear good fruit,
> then let them be. But if they use the name of Christ against us, then
> they are false prophets. This doesn't alter the fact that those folks
> might follow "incorrect doctrines", and should be corrected.

But that is not what the Lord said, is it? One again, you answer the
wrong question.

> It seems to me that you are using Christ's name in order to put yourself
> against the Orthodox Church.

No, I am using Christ's words to measure the truth claims of the
Orthodox Church.

> > Apparently, the apostles had not ordained/authorized this guy, but
> > Jesus did not stop him - in spite of the complaints of the Apostles.
>
> I see you recognize that there was indeed an inner clique who believed
> the authority to teach proper doctrine was their own, and it was their
> domain to ordain others.

Sure there was, and they were wrong, at least according to Jesus.

> > So, when Paul says in Titus 1:6 says that a Bishop must be the husband
> > of one wife, what he is *really* saying is that a Bishop must be the
> > husband of no wife? Why does you Church feel it necessary to correct
> > Paul?
>
> Is it really that difficult for you? Do you really believe Paul ordered
> bishops to be married, and ordinary laymen could choose to be married or
> not? For what purpose? That makes absolutely no sense. The passage
> does not mandate marriage. It's limiting a bishop to one wife.

Did Paul order Bishops to be un-married as your Church requires?
Please answer one question! Your twisting of Scripture and reason
makes even less sense and shows how far Orthodoxy has wandered from
Christian teachings. It also shows how far Orthodox, such as you,
will go to defend the ideas of their idol - the Orthodox Church.

> You reject Christ by calling His Church an idol. He orders you to
> listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he refuses to hear them,
> tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to hear the Church, let
> him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

I do not reject Christ at all, I reject the claim that the Orthodox
Church is His one and only true Church. To do so is, in my heart and
mind, a grave insult to the Lord.

> Divorce is a grave sin that requires repentance, an idea foreign to
> Baptists. Your mind is stuck in either/or.

Baptists don't repent of divorce? How do you know what all Baptists
do?

> Mark 10:11-12 doesn't forbid divorce.

I wasn't talking about divorce. As usual, you attempt to answer an
unasked question. I was talking about re-marriage - which your Church
allows.

> Divorce isn't a light affair in the Orthodox Church and

I didn't say that it was. You brought up the subject!

<canned Orthodox apologetic snipped>

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<JSp7d.79978$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> > And it is a totally wrong interpretation of the passage. The context
> > of this is:

> > "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my
> > presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your
> > salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to
> > will and to act according to his good purpose."

> > The use of the term "dear friends" [agapetos] implies that Paul was
> > addressing people who were already saved. God does call us to do
> > good, but these works are not terms of our salvation - they are the
> > fruit of salvation which God motivates and enables us to do.

> Ha ha ha ha ha :-))))) You gotta be kidding. You read "dear friends"
> and presume they were saved?

Yes I do. Why else would Paul used the term agapetos?

> Paul clearly instructs his "friends" to "work out your salvation." Bearing
> good works in fear and trembling?

God does call us to do good, but these works are not terms of our

salvation - they are the fruit of salvation which God motivates and
enables us to do.

> This is a good one. I'll bring it up this weekend at my parish. This

> is best Prot "interpretation" I've read yet.

Good, at least, perhaps you will spur some Orthodox to do some good
work!

> > Also, the 30 second prayer worked for the thief on the cross. Did it
> > not?

> In which Gospel passage did you read him praying? Christ saved him
> right there on the spot. The last time I checked, He hasn't been making
> house visits.

He was saved because he asked for forgiveness and accepted Christ on
the spot. He didn't need the Church, a clergy, works, or sacraments.

Also, before you mock this man's prayer, ask yourself why you repeat
it prior to Communion if Jesus isn't "making house visits". Really,
you devotion to your idol -the Orthodox Church - causes you to say
some really silly things!

> > Paul tells us in Romans 10:

> > "For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses
> > with his lips and so is saved."

> It doesn't say when he's saved.

Yes it does. We are saved when we believe with our heart and confess
with our lips. Or is this one of those twisting exercises like when
Paul *really* said that I Bishop must be the husband of no wife -
regardless of what he really said?

Once again, you believe your idol - the Orthodox Church - over Paul!

> It's Orthodox teaching that the
> conversion of the heart is a process that must be followed for life and
> not something that occurs by merely moving the lips to a canned prayer.

Orthodoxy is wrong.

Paul begins the process with Salvation [Justification] while the
Orthodox end the process with Salvation [Glorification]. This is more
than a matter of semantics. It is critical, at least to me, to be
able to determine the point when a person becomes acceptable before
God.

The Orthodox view is very vague. We receive salvation at the end of
"theosis" (Deification, or Sanctification in the Protestant
vocabulary) However, the completion of "theosis" may not occur in our
lifetime. So, since we cannot believe in Purgatory, we create "Toll
Houses."

> I take it you're not able to reconcile these passages with the ones I
> posted above. That's ok.

No problem.

Context needs to be understood in order to understand Paul's
distinctions, between justification, sanctification, and
glorification, when he writes about "salvation" in various texts.
Sometimes he groups them all together. Justification is a one time,
once and for all, event. Sanctification operates exactly as
justification - at the point of time when one acquires God's work by
means of an existential faith - except in a perfect tense sense which
speaks of a past action which continues to have abiding results.

For example, in Romans 8:30 Paul uses the aorist tense and does not
include sanctification in that list. Justification and glorification
are positionally "done deals."

For example, when Paul wrote, "work out your salvation" he meant this
to be understood as the believer "testing" as in 2 Cor 13:5 - that
the person's confession is a true confession and not a mere
profession. Also the unbeliever is to come to the initial act where
he "believe with your heart and confess with your mouth." The believer
"works out" his salvation as he "considers" himself "dead to sin" but
"alive to God in Christ Jesus."

> >>I suspect you'll say these people were never
> >>saved in the first place, in which case
> >
> >
> > Yes I would, based on the above.
>
> The above, taken in with the whole of Scripture, especially the passages
> I posted, doesn't support "once saved/always saved."

I am not sure why this topic is your favorite since not all
Protestants believe in it. But I guess you need something to deflect
attention from your Church's inconsistencies.

> > It depends on the state of the person reciting it. Some people say
> > things that they do not really believe.
>
> This indicates a profound misunderstanding of people. Some days a
> person can believe with all their heart, and then, maybe something
> tragic happens, and they abandon their faith. Or they might be
> confronted with false teachings that "disturb their faith", as Paul
> warned. Whatever the case, it's impossible that a person on a flip of a
> switch believes with their entire heart, and never wavers after that.
> There are ups and downs. Doubts ebb and flow. Faith requires work.
> It's not easy. If someone stops praying, attending services, reading
> Scripture, repenting for sins, then I'm betting the feller is toast.

So it is our actions which gain us salvation? If this is so, then
what was the purpose of the Cross, aside from giving us something to
do in the apparently mandatory act of "attending services"?

The Orthodox Church's view of salvation is a huge deivergence from
Biblical teachings going back to the Old Testament. Salvation comes
through the forgiveness of sins and the forgiveness of sins comes
through vicarious atonement and vicarious atonement comes through the
shedding of innocent blood. This is a Biblical theme from the

beginning of the OT to Paul Epistles.

> What Baptists are offering is a dangerous, a very dangerous teaching
> that in itself can generate anxiety in a convert when he knows for
> himself that struggles occur every day with his faith. It's no wonder
> you see people performing multiple sinner's prayers, and repeated alter
> calls.

Perhaps, but so what? Can anyone ever stop sinning altogether?

> The passages I provided indicate the individuals were indeed
> "enlightened" at one time, and had received "God's grace", but their
> faith was being shaken and they were in danger of falling unless they
> held to the Faith until the end. Romans 10 makes perfect sense when
> taken in context of the entirety of the NT, from an Orthodox
> understanding. How one can be "enlightened" in the Word or have
> received God's grace, but not really have been saved, but a "dear
> friend" of Paul is presumed to have been saved, doesn't pass the giggle
> test.

But Romans 10 tells us:

"For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses
with his lips and so is saved."

> > If I buy into the Orthodox line that no one can know if he or she is
> > saved, then I have another question for you. How can the Orthodox
> > Church teach that no human can know whether or not he/she is
> > saved/going to heaven or hell - much less know another person's fate -
> > while humans in the very same Church [Bishops and Synods] can
> > "declare" that certain people are in heaven and
> > that they can intercede on our behalf?
>
> This is actually good question.

Let's see if I get an answer!

> The answer is that the person is associated with miracles after leaving this
> world, and the Church investigates and deems he or she lived a life in accord
> to a saint, which is a life that is open to the light of Christ and shares
> this light with the world in this life and the next.

This sounds similar to the Roman Catholic process. In Orthodoxy,
people, such as the last Czar and his family, can be elevated by a
Bishop or Synod. How do they know that these people really lived a
Saint's life. Does a Bishop or Synod know every detail of that life
or what they thought at any given time? Perhaps, since there is no
such thing as "once saved, always saved" they could have lost faith at
the last minute. Also, how does one verify "miracles"? Does an
Orthodox Saint need 3, or will one do?

Really, the whole thing looks very arbitrary, and in the end, you have
to trust the Church - which I do not.

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<EFq7d.80317$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> >>12) Protestants don?t embrace heresies.

> >>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

> >>Oh? Ever heard of oneness Pentecostalism? What about the Jehovah
> >>Witnesses?

> > Yes, I have. Are JWs or "Oneness Pentecostals" considered
> > Protestants? I have only heard their teachings condemned where I go
> > to Church!

> By what standard are they condemned against? The Nicene Creed? But
> that's extra-Biblical.

I don't need the Nicene Creed. Instead of creating confusing
doctrines
[which confuses and confounds many people], I could simply point to
the Bible which clearly tells us that the Father is God (Phil. 1:2),
the Son is God (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), and the Holy Spirit is God
(Acts 5:3-4). How this "works", I simply do not know, nor should I
attempt to define and delineate what cannot be defined and delineated.

> I challenge you to go into a JW board and try to
> prove to them Christ wasn't impaled on a stake.

I challenge you to go to the Islam board and convince them that Christ
was nailed to a cross. People believe what they wish, regardless of
evidence.

> They'll out-Prot you
> with sola scriptura techniques any day. My view is that this common
> thread of sola scriptura puts them in the Protestant camp, regardless if
> they reject the Nicene Creed.

That only works on people who do not know Scripture. That is why the
JWs do so well among the Orthodox. Sadly, one of my cousins joined
that cult. The JWs are very active here in New York, and it is fairly
easy to defeat their arguments. They use roughly 8 passages, which
they twist out of context. All that I do, is to pull out my Bible and
read along with them - in context. They almost never come to my dorm
the next week!

> > Ever hear of neo-Platonic Paganism which believes that prayers can be
> > transmitted by matter to their "prototype"? Your veneration of an
> > icon is based on the same philosophy as the veneration of a statue of
> > Apollo by an ancient Greek.
>
> No, it's not. It's based on the worship of the Incarnation as a
> material human being, and fully accepting God's reconciliation of the
> spiritual with the material. It's also following the Seventh Ecumenical
> Council and rejecting the heresy of Iconoclasm, a heresy that's in the
> Baptist front pocket.

Sure it is. Wrap in up in anything that you like, you are still
conveying veneration to a proto-type. And that is pure neo-Platonic
Paganism, regardless of how you wish to justify it.

> > The very first mistake of the Church was the rejection of Scriptures
> > because of some heretical interpretations of the Scripture in the
> > first couple of centuries. This rendered tradition a necessary
> > supplement to Scripture. It was a mistake because even the tradition
> > proved insufficient in the matters of faith, as it is clear from the
> > idea of so-called purgatory, when the least which is evident is that
> > Catholic and Orthodox Christians, boasting with the same apostolic
> > origin, don't see eye to eye in an important doctrinal matter.

> I've corrected you on this before. Purgatory isn't a mandatory doctrine
> for Catholics. IOW, a Catholic can reject it and be a good Catholic.

Whether, or not, Purgatory is a mandatory doctrine is not the issue.
As usual, you reply to the un-asked question. The issue is that
Tradition can be used to support/deny this teaching.

> Secondly, neither Catholics nor Orthodox deny the other side maintains
> legitimate apostolic succession, or that Holy Tradition exists, or the
> Eucharist is the real blood and body of Christ, or the full set of
> sacraments, or the process of salvation, or the reality and necessity of
> the visible Church.

Which is also not the question at hand.

> What separates us is the authority of the Roman
> See, and the accompanying doctrine of papal infallibility. It's not an
> issue that can be resolved by Tradition, so your insistence that we
> maintain two parallel Traditions that teach differently isn't quite
> accurate. It's more of a hole in the Holy Tradition, with both sides
> not agreeing on how it is to be rectified. The issue is indeed about
> the authority of a bishop and whether it can cover the other
> Patriarchates. It will take an Ecumenical Council to fix the problem,
> but it won't happen in my lifetime. At the end of the day, it's not a
> factor in the continuing doctrines and teachings regarding my salvation,
> so I don't worry about it.

So, like the Protestants who all claim to correctly interpret the
Bible, the Catholics, Orthodox, and the Oriental Churches all claim to
correctly interpret Tradition, yet dervice different ideas from it?

> Not exactly accurate. The non-Byzantine West accepted these Councils.

Aside from Rome, what is the non-Byzantine West?

> There was meddling at times, but from the Emperor's perspective, he was
> more concerned that a unified doctrine existed rather than taking the
> side of one faction over another in order to maintain peace in the
> empire.

Not always true. Arianism lasted much longer than Nestorianism
because members of the royal family embraced Arianism for a longer
period of time.

> > Sure it did. All three Eastern Church Sees were under the
> > jurisdiction of heretical Bishops simultaneously during the Arian,
>
> No, it did not. And if you're going to go on with this fallacious
> reasoning, please provide substantive evidence that anyone beyond an
> appointed Patriarch embraced a heresy.

So these three Bishops were all alone, off in their own little world,
in their little heresies? That's funny!

> But you earlier said you accept the Nicene Creed. Have you ever read
> it? Explain this line, please:

Sure.

> "And we believe... In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

> This doesn't say, "We believe in a bunch of Churches, without any
> Apostolic succession, and none more true than any other."

It also doesn't say "We believe in a group of "autonomous and
autocephalus" Churches".

> No, it hasn't. The funny thing is, I lurked around here a couple of
> years ago and you were quite active with this fallacious BS about these
> heresies in the Orthodox Church. I came back a few months ago and I see
> you haven't *learned* any better. It demonstrates to me that your only
> interest is an endless harangue rather than reasonable thinking.

I haven't been around for that long, so perhaps it was someone else.
The question, which has never been answered, is: Where was the Holy
Spirit when all 3 Eastern Sees were all involved in a variety of
heresies?

> Cyberspace type is cheap. Researching and providing substantive
> evidence is mighty hard when the facts aren't there. You admitted in a
> roundabout way earlier today that the Orthodox Church is an evolved
> Church from the Paulist era, and now here you are back to your old
> habits.

No, all Churches descend, in one way or another, from the Pauline
Church.

> Harangue, deflect, dodge, and unload worthless opinion. That
> would be the Learner's dance :-)))))

Through in the art of answering questions that have not been raised,
this sounds a lot more like you!

Learner

[Alice Gless]

"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...
>

> No, all Churches descend, in one way or another, from the Pauline
> Church.

I'm neither for you nor against you. But I do have a dog in this, my soul.
I've been agonizing with some of the same problems in the western "mega"
church. It's news to me that people who won't venerate icons are
anathematized. That is like retroactively athemetizing the Virgin Mary and
all the early apostles and saints. I don't have a mind for deep theological
thinking, but it did occur to me not too long ago, and I don't think I read
it anywhere, that the real Virgin Mary would never have prayed before any
image or statue. Of course, I will go so far to say that if St. Peter would
have permitted it in her lifetime, she would have acquiesced, as she would
have agreed that the formerly unclean meats were now permissible, because
she would have submitted to legitimate authority. But unclean meats were
dietary laws and were distinct from the commandments.

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you have been branded as a
heretic whose motive is to sow discord. At least in one instance, one who
venerates an icon depicting a saint slaying a dragon which didn't really
happen would be the heretic, not you.

And, of course, I'm familiar with the arguments about the cherubim and the
serpent on the pole so don't anyone go there please. At least those were
commanded directly from God through his intermediary. One of the virtues of
some of the OT believers was that some of them moaned and sighed because
images had been introduced into the temple, and they were marked by an angel
with God's favor.

But, what happened to the keys in your theology? The original purpose and
intent in the early church seems to be to give authority to make and change
rules and bind and loose. Might that also include the use of icons? I read
yesterday that images of angels began to appear about the second century.
The keys seem pretty significant, regardless of how one interprets or abuses
their original purpose.

The biggest problem for me is that both east and west believed in a real
presence almost from the beginning, the Didache notwithstanding. I don't
know what to do with that information concerning my personal journey.
Scriptures could be argued either way as far as I am concerned. Paul talks
about the bread that "we" bless and "without discerning the body". Sounds
kind of like a modern-day concelebrated mass, although it must have been in
more simplified, less ritualized form in the earliest times. I just can't
comprehend how the once monolithic (structurally and doctinally with minor
deviations) "east/west church" together could have gotten it so wrong and
continued in the supposed error throughout the centuries. A little piece of
bread and a sip of wine ought to suffice, and there are practical
considerations when such vast numbers have to be ministered to.

I don't know the exact timing, but it is not lost on me that Islam arose
around the time of the council you cited permitting veneration of icons.
Islam, for whatever its errors and faults, is adamant and has remained so
against the use of icons/images/statues in conjunction with worship. There
has to be a reason Islam has been allowed to proliferate to the extent it
has, perhaps as a scourge. It is pure conjecture on my part that there may
be a correlation.

With regard to the election of bishops, one good case why this is not a good
idea generally is what happened in the Episcopal Church here in the USA.
When democracy takes over the church, that is almost a sure-fire guarantee
that serious error will creep in, if not sooner, then later. According to
the reasoning that a bishop must be married, that would eliminate the
apostle Paul from that office for sure.

I guess what bothers me the most is that no one wants to concede that you
raise some valid questions and issues, regardless of whether you are right
or wrong and if they can ever be satisfactorily resolved at this late date.

Personally, I can still assent with my whole heart to a lot of the teachings
of the "big two". There is certainly comfort to be among like-minded
believers, even if they may have seemed to have taken a wrong turn somewhere
historically. I would hate to think that *anyone* would lose their
salvation if they were sincere and tried their best to follow the most
correct path they could discern.

The idea of anathemitizing is kind of haunting. There is only one anathema
in the gospels; i.e., preaching any other gospel, the one "once delivered"
to the saints. A lot of the later traditions are definitely part of the
original gospel message, so sometimes I can't help thinking we are dealing
with another gospel in some of this, or at least an "expanded", "enhanced",
or "altered" one.

I don't believe that the bible was intended as the sole rule of faith, but I
do see where for some of us, that is all we have left. Even then, to go off
on your own with scriptures causes more confusion, as we have seen down
through the years in the various Protestant sects.

People were allowed to own slaves in OT times and in biblical times. I
don't know what to do with that one. There did seem to be a period of time
after which they were offered freedom. I am not arguing in favor of
slavery, but I am using that as an example of something most of us agree is
now evil was permitted. I didn't know the Russian church institutionally
owned serfs, but I don't know if there is a whole lot of difference between
that and the Catholic practice in the southern hemisphere of having peasants
working church-owned property. Slavery is a matter of definition and degree
at any given time in history. We certainly have some quasi-slavery
operating in our times in the form of corporations and all government
workers. You owe your life and soul to your salary, benefits, and pension.
Takes a lot of faith to be free in that type of environment; i.e, make moves
that would be more personally fulfilling. Some people manage to escape;
some never can. Some probably want to; some probably like the status quo.

More random thoughts from one who reads some of the discussions here but
doesn't have a whole lot to offer except more questions that have pat
answers if you subscribe to one of the ancient churches. I didn't used to,
but I resent people invading my spiritual space spouting scriptures
indiscriminately at me. That is a real recipe for disaster if you aren't
careful who you associate with. If they don't get you personally and you
don't have a sound spiritual compass, your descendants will surely fall prey
to who knows what?

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:
> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<EFq7d.80317$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>>>12) Protestants don?t embrace heresies.
>
>
>>>>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* My response*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>>>Oh? Ever heard of oneness Pentecostalism? What about the Jehovah
>>>>Witnesses?
>
>
>>>Yes, I have. Are JWs or "Oneness Pentecostals" considered
>>>Protestants? I have only heard their teachings condemned where I go
>>>to Church!
>
>
>
>>By what standard are they condemned against? The Nicene Creed? But
>>that's extra-Biblical.
>
>
> I don't need the Nicene Creed. Instead of creating confusing
> doctrines
> [which confuses and confounds many people], I could simply point to
> the Bible which clearly tells us that the Father is God (Phil. 1:2),
> the Son is God (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), and the Holy Spirit is God
> (Acts 5:3-4). How this "works", I simply do not know, nor should I
> attempt to define and delineate what cannot be defined and delineated.

You're being dishonest again. You wrote in another post in this thread:

Me: I take it you reject the Nicene Creed?
Learner: No.

And in another post in this thread:

Me: Don't you realize that denying the Trinity and the divinity of
Christ are heresies?

Learner: Sure.

>>I challenge you to go into a JW board and try to
>>prove to them Christ wasn't impaled on a stake.
>
>
> I challenge you to go to the Islam board and convince them that Christ
> was nailed to a cross. People believe what they wish, regardless of
> evidence.

As evidenced by your deflections, fallacious rants, and abundance of
sophistry.

>>They'll out-Prot you
>>with sola scriptura techniques any day. My view is that this common
>>thread of sola scriptura puts them in the Protestant camp, regardless if
>>they reject the Nicene Creed.
>
>
> That only works on people who do not know Scripture. That is why the

Which you haven't demonstrated.

> JWs do so well among the Orthodox. Sadly, one of my cousins joined
> that cult. The JWs are very active here in New York, and it is fairly
> easy to defeat their arguments. They use roughly 8 passages, which
> they twist out of context. All that I do, is to pull out my Bible and
> read along with them - in context. They almost never come to my dorm
> the next week!

Probably got tired of your monotonous, circular harangues.

>>>Ever hear of neo-Platonic Paganism which believes that prayers can be
>>>transmitted by matter to their "prototype"? Your veneration of an
>>>icon is based on the same philosophy as the veneration of a statue of
>>>Apollo by an ancient Greek.
>>
>>No, it's not. It's based on the worship of the Incarnation as a
>>material human being, and fully accepting God's reconciliation of the
>>spiritual with the material. It's also following the Seventh Ecumenical
>>Council and rejecting the heresy of Iconoclasm, a heresy that's in the
>>Baptist front pocket.
>
>
> Sure it is. Wrap in up in anything that you like, you are still
> conveying veneration to a proto-type. And that is pure neo-Platonic
> Paganism, regardless of how you wish to justify it.

I'm still waiting on you to produce Christ's bones or a 3rd century copy
of Exodus.

The Bible is nothing more than an icon in black and white, and the cross

hanging in your Nondenom warehouse is nothing more than an unpainted
icon. It’s a symbol that communicates doctrine. Furthermore, universal

literacy is a recent luxury in human history, and icons performed a
critical role in communicating doctrines and Scripture, as well as
provided examples of humans throughout the history of the Faith who
lived pious lives and thereby teaching us that such a life is possible.

Icons act as a reinforcement of proper living.

By denying icons, you are denying the Incarnation of God in Christ. The
Hebraic peoples were given the commandment to not create graven images…
why? Because at that time God’s divinity was not manifest in physical

form. Jews then and now regard that as impossible, even an outright
sacrilege. The birth of Christ upset that long-held belief. God became
matter, therefore reconciling the physical world with the spiritual.
The Incarnation was such a revolutionary event that it indeed took
hundreds of years for man (especially Jews taught by the old Law) to

grasp its nature. It’s not at all surprising that a few early

Christians had problems accepting them, given their Jewish background.
However, over the first few centuries of the Church, this issue was
hammered out and decided upon by consensus in an Ecumenical Council,
just as the divinity of Christ had been. Now, many Protestants have
resurrected the heresy of Iconoclasm out of historical ignorance and an

unhealthy understanding of the Law in light of the Incarnation. No

doctrine says you have to maintain an icon, or kiss it or whatever, but
it’s a heresy to label such actions as idolatry.

“He is the image (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God, the firstborn
over all creation.” – Colossians 1:15

“Of old God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all.

But now God has appeared in the flesh and lived among humans, I make
an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter but I
worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and
deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I
will not cease from worshipping the matter through which my salvation

has been effected.”

- St. John of Damascus, On Icons

“We do not adore as gods the figures and images of the saints. For if it

was the mere wood of the image that we adored as God, we should likewise
adore all wood, and not, as often happens, when the form grows faint,
throw the image into the fire. And again, as long as the wood remains in
the form of a cross, I adore it on account of Christ who was crucified

upon it. When it falls to pieces, I throw them into the fire.”

- St. Leontius of Naples (d. about 650AD

>>>The very first mistake of the Church was the rejection of Scriptures
>>>because of some heretical interpretations of the Scripture in the
>>>first couple of centuries. This rendered tradition a necessary
>>>supplement to Scripture. It was a mistake because even the tradition
>>>proved insufficient in the matters of faith, as it is clear from the
>>>idea of so-called purgatory, when the least which is evident is that
>>>Catholic and Orthodox Christians, boasting with the same apostolic
>>>origin, don't see eye to eye in an important doctrinal matter.
>
>
>
>>I've corrected you on this before. Purgatory isn't a mandatory doctrine
>>for Catholics. IOW, a Catholic can reject it and be a good Catholic.
>
>
> Whether, or not, Purgatory is a mandatory doctrine is not the issue.
> As usual, you reply to the un-asked question. The issue is that
> Tradition can be used to support/deny this teaching.

It is the issue because you are unable to discern doctrine from beliefs
and practices.

>>Secondly, neither Catholics nor Orthodox deny the other side maintains
>>legitimate apostolic succession, or that Holy Tradition exists, or the
>>Eucharist is the real blood and body of Christ, or the full set of
>>sacraments, or the process of salvation, or the reality and necessity of
>>the visible Church.
>
>
> Which is also not the question at hand.

There is no question at hand. There's only your fallacious rants and
attempts to pretend no one "answers" your questions. This behavior goes
back two years. And don't try to say it was another "Learner" (I
remember you pulling that one before, too). Your posting address then
was nat...@40hotmail.com, just as it is now.

>>What separates us is the authority of the Roman
>>See, and the accompanying doctrine of papal infallibility. It's not an
>>issue that can be resolved by Tradition, so your insistence that we
>>maintain two parallel Traditions that teach differently isn't quite
>>accurate. It's more of a hole in the Holy Tradition, with both sides
>>not agreeing on how it is to be rectified. The issue is indeed about
>>the authority of a bishop and whether it can cover the other
>>Patriarchates. It will take an Ecumenical Council to fix the problem,
>>but it won't happen in my lifetime. At the end of the day, it's not a
>>factor in the continuing doctrines and teachings regarding my salvation,
>>so I don't worry about it.
>
>
> So, like the Protestants who all claim to correctly interpret the
> Bible, the Catholics, Orthodox, and the Oriental Churches all claim to
> correctly interpret Tradition, yet dervice different ideas from it?

Are you talking about Baptists and Lutherans and Methodists (the latter
two don't agree with your innovative teachings on salvation, BTW)?

Again, I asked you to point out the conflicting doctrines, which you
repeatedly snip in the hope your harangue will suffice.

>>Not exactly accurate. The non-Byzantine West accepted these Councils.
>
>
> Aside from Rome, what is the non-Byzantine West?
>
>
>>There was meddling at times, but from the Emperor's perspective, he was
>>more concerned that a unified doctrine existed rather than taking the
>>side of one faction over another in order to maintain peace in the
>>empire.
>
>
> Not always true. Arianism lasted much longer than Nestorianism
> because members of the royal family embraced Arianism for a longer
> period of time.
>
>
>>>Sure it did. All three Eastern Church Sees were under the
>>>jurisdiction of heretical Bishops simultaneously during the Arian,
>>
>>No, it did not. And if you're going to go on with this fallacious
>>reasoning, please provide substantive evidence that anyone beyond an
>>appointed Patriarch embraced a heresy.
>
>
> So these three Bishops were all alone, off in their own little world,
> in their little heresies? That's funny!
>>But you earlier said you accept the Nicene Creed. Have you ever read
>>it? Explain this line, please:
>
>
> Sure.

Sure what? Explain what it means.

>>"And we believe... In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."
>
>
>
>>This doesn't say, "We believe in a bunch of Churches, without any
>>Apostolic succession, and none more true than any other."
>
>
> It also doesn't say "We believe in a group of "autonomous and
> autocephalus" Churches".

Yes, that's exactly what they created, and these Churches constitute the
Body of Christ. Again, you think that by deflection and fallacious
smoke blowing it will confuse others.

>>No, it hasn't. The funny thing is, I lurked around here a couple of
>>years ago and you were quite active with this fallacious BS about these
>>heresies in the Orthodox Church. I came back a few months ago and I see
>>you haven't *learned* any better. It demonstrates to me that your only
>>interest is an endless harangue rather than reasonable thinking.
>
>
> I haven't been around for that long, so perhaps it was someone else.
> The question, which has never been answered, is: Where was the Holy
> Spirit when all 3 Eastern Sees were all involved in a variety of
> heresies?

You're being dishonest again. You've been here since October of 2002.
Your posts are saved by Google. Every single monotonous rant you repeat
today appears to have come from your talking points of two years ago.
So much for your learning curve.

The Holy Spirit was in the Orthodox Church. You're committing the

fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Your reasoning is proven wrong by
counter-examples...

“Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Assembly of God can't be
Christ's Church.”
“Baptists sold slaves. An institution that buys and sells humans,

foments racism against blacks, and lynches minorities can't be Christ's

Church. I certainly can’t follow such a person’s teachings on sola
scriptura.”

The truth is that many despicable people believe and trust in the Holy
Spirit, the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ but it doesn’t have any

relevance on the merits of those doctrines. If you want perfect people

to illustrate Christ’s doctrines, then you’re in for a major
disappointment. Your tactic is one of “tar and smear” individuals for

being fallen slobs, while in turn you have little to nothing to offer in
refutation of the doctrines in question. Scripture tells us that tares
will be found among the wheat, and that His Church would endure
tribulations. But of course, these passages mean nothing for a cherry

pickin’ Protestant who can’t make sense of the entirety of Scripture

without ignoring half of it at the instruction of Brother Billy Bob, who
of course leads a sinless life.

>>Cyberspace type is cheap. Researching and providing substantive
>>evidence is mighty hard when the facts aren't there. You admitted in a
>>roundabout way earlier today that the Orthodox Church is an evolved
>>Church from the Paulist era, and now here you are back to your old
>>habits.
>
>
> No, all Churches descend, in one way or another, from the Pauline
> Church.

No they do not. You've made no attempt to even connect your cult with
the Pauline Church. The Pauline Church included the Churches of
Corinth, Thessalonica, and Galatia, all which have remained firmly
Orthodox and are under the Greek Orthodox jurisdiction today.

[Al]

"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...

> I don't need the Nicene Creed.

***Then you don't have the True Statement of the True Faith. That's it.
Plain and simple.

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<TJg7d.75644$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>>>3a) The guys who wrote the Bible belonged to a Church that no longer
>>>>exists, which has no connection to the Orthodox Church.
>
>
>>>Yes, and there is an Episcopal Church down the street that was built
>>>in the 1700's. Are they the really same Church today in terms of
>>>belief and practice, as when the Church was founded?
>
>
>
>>No, because they're no longer in apostolic succession and they've
>>embraced teachings that go against the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
>
>
> That is an answer but, sadly, it is not an answer to the issue at
> hand. My response had nothing to do with whether or not Anglican
> apostolic succession is valid. The point is that an institution can
> evolve while keeping its historical name.

+++
First of all, I don't know what beliefs and practices this parish had in
the 1700's and what they do today. You recite a trivial truism, "Things
change," and erroneously conclude that a two-year old is a different
human than his mature fifty year old self.

Secondly, you still confuse practices with doctrines. I'm not going to
address phantom practices and doctrines that you refuse to provide.
+++

>>>But this is not the case. Historains have recognized, since the time
>>>of Professor Bauer [who Al sited] that the terms "Orthodoxy" and
>>>"Heresy" to not accurately represent the circumstances of the first
>>>centuries of Christianity. During this time, there was far more
>>>diversity in belief than in later periods, and perhaps even more
>>>diversity than exists today. Many people would have been expelled from
>>>the church after the Nicene Council, who in earlier times would have
>>>peacefully worshipped together with those who disagreed since.
>>
>>First of all, you are again making unsubstantiated claims. You've
>>provided no evidence that: they worshipped peacefully together (in fact,
>>history shows this is not true; the purpose of the Councils was to
>>restore unity because of fighting factions over doctrine), and more
>>diversity of belief existed than today.
>
>
> This is goes beyond your normal habit of answering a different
> question, rather than the issue at hand. This response involves the
> problem of reading comprehension. I am referring to the First Century
> Church, not 4th century (and later) Church which evolved under the
> influence of Byzantine politics.

+++
It's not about reading comprehension, it's about you reciting either a
trivial truism ("change happens") or an outright fallacy ("something
evolved, therefore it's not the same thing anymore"), and then draw
conclusions that don't follow. You're trying to say that early
Christians, before the First OeC, worshipped peacefully together and
there wasn't such a concept of right belief (formally known as
"orthodox") and wrong belief (formally known as a "heresy"). This
simply isn't true, Learner. Those various factions were ripping the
empire apart with their squabbles. That was the reason why Councils
were called.

Paul mentions the heresy of Valentinian Gnosticism in 2 Timothy 2:17-18.
In 2 Peter 3:14-16 (which you snipped - why, I wonder?). He warns
against those who've twisted Scriptures: "Therefore, beloved, looking

forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace,
without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our
Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the
wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to
understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own
destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

You continue on implying that there existed a mass of peaceloving
Protestants who numbered in more than 30,000 diverse sects who didn't
know the concept of wrong belief, until the government, for some unknown
reason, decided to force one minority doctrine upon everyone.

You also are inconsistent in you treatment of the 1st century Church.
On the one hand, you continue to harp on the comprehensive nature of the
Didache in expressing a set of unified, and complete, set of doctrines
which bear no resemblance to the Orthodox Church, and then you
contradict yourself and write the 1st century Church embraced "far more
diversity in belief than in later periods." Which is it, Learner? Are
those beliefs contained in the Didache or not?

In addition, what is meant by "later periods"? The 5th century? But in
other posts you dispute that there was any unity in Orthodox doctrine in
that period, or any other period, by your monotonous two-year old
fallacious rant about heretical bishops.

In what kind of just universe does God allow a true doctrine of
salvation ("once saved/always saved") float around undocumented in the
1st century, and then it mysteriously disappears well before the first
Nicene Council (imposed by that terrible Byzantine state, no doubt)
until that murderer Calvin "discovers" it in the 1500's?

Your entire line of argumentation is incoherent.
+++

>>St. Paul writes, "Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the
>>truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are
>>upsetting the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:17-18)" This is in direct
>>reference to the Gnostic heretical belief that Christians are already
>>resurrected.
>
>
> So, thank you for proving my point! There were a number of different
> groups who held different opinions about who Jesus was and what he
> taught. And these differences continued until the politics of
> Byzantium hammered them out.

+++
Say what? Those different opinions were wrong (i.e.heretical). No
Orthodox denied such existed, or such ever ceased to exist. It appears
you're trying to say it's ok to have wrong doctrines because wrong
doctrines have existed since the 1st century. If you think adopting
wrong doctrines merits a brownie point, I'll award you a bucket load of
them.
+++

>>In 2 Peter 3:14-16, we read, "Therefore, beloved, looking forward to
>>these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and
>>blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is
>>salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom
>>given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking
>>in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,
>>which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as
>>they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
>
>
>
>>These passages, among others, indicate "clearly" that the concept of
>>right belief and wrong belief existed in the early Church. Your
>>unsubstantiated claims don't stand.
>
>
> Which, once again, is not the issue. These passages also indicate
> that were a number of different groups who held different opinions
> about who Jesus was and what he taught.
>
> It is also interesting to note that Paul's Epistles [which were the
> earliest NT Scriptures] say nothing of the virgin birth.

+++
Again, make note that you snipped the passage in question. It clearly
states those different opinions were about Paul's Epistles and OT
Scipture that "untaught and unstable people twist to their own

destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

And why do you believe in the Nicene Creed, which states Christ was born
from the Virgin Mary??? Are you now admitting that you accept
non-Biblical doctrines??? Why do you believe in the Virgin Mary,
Learner, since it's not in the Paul's Epistles? Make up your mind -
either you accept or reject the Nicene Creed.

And once again, you try to divert from the Scriptural material I posted
by dropping a plug about the virgin birth. Make note that you had
nothing to say about the abundance of passages I posted that prove your
innovative "once saved/always saved" mythology isn't based on the Bible.
+++

>>>The term "Orthodoxy," is an inadequate one. It is currently used to
>>>define the group which enforced its beliefs on others in later times -
>>>effectivel pushing its rivals out of the picture. Orthodoxy, after
>>>winning the political struggle in Byzantium, then attempted to justify
>>>its doctrines and beliefs by refering to earlier writers who held
>>>positions which, while if not entirely compatible with theirs, could
>>>be interpreted as kind of close.
>>
>>More unsubstantiated opinions, without reference. You can't point out
>>any Orthodox doctrine that was ever rejected by the majority of Church
>>Fathers.
>
>
> Which is rather obvious. Church Fathers were selected because they
> supported one, or another, beliefs of the Byzantine Imperial Church.
> It was a simple case of backward reckoning, or "cherry picking" quotes
> which supported a given belief.

+++
What were these core beliefs of this Imperial Church that they forced
the majority of the Church Fathers to write about and then vote for,
Learner? More of your off-the-cuff unsubstantiated comments.
+++

> However, there are some gems among these writtings. For example, St.
> Epiphanius of Salamis said in his letter to Theodosius:
>
> "Which of the ancient fathers ever painted an image of Christ and
> placed it in a church or private house? What ancient bishop ever
> dishonoured Christ by painting him on door curtains?"

+++
You've already posted this, and I adequately posted the replies from St.
John Damascene and St. Leontius. The absolute majority of bishops and
Fathers supported the theology of icons, evidenced not just by their
writings, but by the 7th Ecumenical Council. Not only that, your
Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran brethren disagree with the nonsense
you write about icons.
+++

>>>The earlier Church Fathers which could be used in such a way, were are
>>>"Proto-Orthodox." The Church Fatherswho could not be so used in for
>>>the Church's purposes of the moment were relegated to the category of
>>>"Heresy," which is meaningful only in regard to historical
>>>development, and consequently has nothing to do with "purity" or
>>>"impurity" of doctrine. The Church never really made an official list
>>>of Church Fathers because, even among those whom the Church accepts,
>>>there is a mixture of "truth" and "falsehoods" in their works. So the
>>>Church "cherry picks" what it wants from these documents.
>>
>>This fallacious reasoning was corrected in my original post. There
>>isn't such a thing as a "heretical" Church Father and an "orthodox" one.
>
>
> What about Origen or Tertullian?

+++
What about them?
+++

>> There are Church Father writings that have heretical elements and
>>ideas, but such heretical material does not constitute the majority of
>>Patristic writing. You've not substantiated your claims with any
>>examples of a doctrine condemned as heretical by conciliar decision,
>>while the heretical idea was embraced by the majority of Patristic
>>writers. This scenario doesn't exist.
>
>
> Once again you dodge the issue by raising another issue.
>
> The "filter" which determined the "truth" of Orthodoxy was the 4th
> century Byzantine State. Emperor Constantine, and his successors,
> picked a faction to form his Imperial Church.

+++
No, no. The filter was conciliar consensus. You've failed to provide
evidence for any Orthodox doctrine that we follow that was enforced upon
the majority by a tyrannical minority until this minority viewpoint
became the majority.
+++

> The state sponsored works of these "Fathers" are fairly consistent
> (except perhaps for Gregory of Nyssa dabbling with extreme
> Universalism), and they looked to the ancient fathers (ie Polycarp),
> when it suited their agenda, while they called others heretics (ie
> Origen).

+++
More of your unsubstantiated hot air.
+++

> The Orthodox Church begins with the 4th century "Fathers", and looks
> back to the writings of the early Church for support. This is nothing
> more than an argument in search of a conclusion.

+++
Interesting. Now you say the Orthodox Church begins in the 4th century.
Up in the thread you said it began in 1054. Your wrong on both
counts, predictably. The OC was founded at the Pentacost, and you can
read about our first parishes in the NT in Corinth, Galatia,
Thessalonica, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and elsewhere.

To state that someone explains and clarifies a doctrine by providing
written evidence of historical precedent for the doctrine is a trivial
observation. This is the only reasonable thing to do, Learner. What's
not reasonable is to invent a new doctrine, and completely disregard
previously held beliefs and theological writings, while singling out ONE
document and proof-texting it to death and out of context of everything
else. This is what your Baptist church has done. If you believe that's
the honest means to form doctrine, that's your problem. What's you've
failed to do is demonstrate that a thoroughly researched and rigorously
defended doctrine in a council of bishops was adopted which contradicted
previously held belief and the majority of Church Father writings.
+++

>>>The Constitution is different today. There have been numerous
>>>Amendments added, which would probably shock those who wrote the
>>>original document. The interpretation of the Constitution has also
>>>changed - such as the "right" of abortion being "found" in the 4th
>>>Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>You fail to grasp the counter-example. The Constitution remains the
>>same. Your reasoning says because it is different and has evolved, it
>>is no longer the Constitution. This is fallacious thinking.
>
>
> Wrong. Both the text and interpretation of the Constitution would
> most likely shock the authors of the original text. The Constitution
> is not the same as the one penned in the 18th century, although both
> have the same name.

+++
Here you go again with this "shocked" mind-reading BS.

Your fallacious reasoning remains exposed by counter-example. You deny
the authority and legitimacy of the Constitution and the Presidency
because they've evolved. Because they've changed over time, consistent
with the intent of their creators that they would evolve within the
living mechanisms created, you deny those items today didn't exist 200
years ago.

Go ahead and continue on with this form of reasoning. It undermines
everything you write.
+++

>>>But are they the same 2000 years ago as today? What about the Church
>>>in Rome, which was also mentioned? I think that you are comparing
>>>apples to grapes.
>>
>>You're comparing a two year old with his fifty year old self and denying
>>there is a connection because the old man is bald, though wiser.
>
>
> Once again, this does not address the issue at hand. The Orthodox
> Church does not compare itself to a two year old. The Orthodox Church
> claims that it is the "true Church" that can trace its doctrines,
> beliefs and practices back to the Apostles and, ultimately, to Jesus
> Christ. The Orthodox Church believes that it has preserved the
> Apostolic faith without change or corruption. This is clearly not the
> case and the Orthodox argument collapses under the weight of the
> contradiction in its own self-definition.

+++
The apostolic doctrines, beliefs, and practices remain intact in the
Orthodox Church today and you've not demonstrated otherwise. All
Orthodox credal formulas, liturgical texts, and doctrinal statements
affirm the original apostolic faith, which was also expressed in the
apostolic traditions of the first centuries. There were indeed other
beliefs and practices, which were not apostolic, and constituted a
diverse body of wrong doctrines, as so stated Paul and the other Apostles.
+++

>>>The first century Didache shows us how far the Orthodox Church is from
>>>these early Churches. In the Didache there is no baptism of infants,
>>>no veneration of Mary or the saints, no icons, no "real presence", and
>>>Bishops were married men who were elected by their congregations.
>
>
>
>>The Didache doesn't say bishops were married men; it says they are to
>>have one wife.
>
>
> Once again, this is an answer, but not to the issue at hand. How do
> you pervert the language of a Bishop having one wife to the
> requirement that they have no wife? Why does your Church twist Paul's
> words? Perhaps he was talking about your Church in the
> afore-mentioned quotes!

+++
What is your problem? Where is your thinking organ? Nowhere does it say
that a bishop is required to be married. Provide the exact quote,
Learner, that states a bishop MUST be married. Why would Paul mandate a
bishop be married? Was James married, the bishop of Jerusalem? This is
the same idiotic reasoning you provided on the supposed ban against
infant baptism. You lie about something that isn't written, and then
continue on along that path as if it's fooling someone. Provide the
exact quote, Learner, that mandates a bishop to be married.
+++

>>You've been corrected on this Didache harangue already, and demonstrate
>>again a profound desire to ignore what has been written. I'll
>>cut-n-paste my response as I promised you I'd do when you pretend that
>>an answer wasn't provided:
>
>
> You have "corrected" me? You have yet to answer a single issue!
> Second, do you accuse anyone who questions your Church of a
> "harangue"? Why is it that moral implications must be made for those
> who question your Church?

+++
I accuse someone of mindless harangues when he repeats the same
fallacious nonsense, while pretending he's raising issues that haven't
been answered. This is the typical dishonest discussion that you seem
to be unable to avoid. I responded to your "questions" multiple times
(and not just me, plenty others over the last two years), and you in
turn snip the answers, and repeat your talking points. Scriptural
passages are provided that prove your innovative beliefs are false, you
in turn snip those passages and whine that no one answered your
"questions." Grow up.
+++

>>The Didache isn't an all-comprehensive document of the Church's
>>practices and beliefs, nor does it claim to be such. Furthermore, it
>>says nothing that contradicts Orthodox teaching. It's an edifying
>>document, though not all-inclusive.
>
>
> Once again, you are answering a claim that wasn't made. I never said
> that the Didach was "all-comprehensive". What I find amazing is that
> many "pillars" of Orthodoxy, such as the "real presence", icons, and
> veneration of the Saints are conspicuously absent in the Didache.
> These are not minor issues.

+++
It says nothing about the Trinity, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, or
the nature of Christ's divinity, once saved/always saved lies, alter
calls, Baptist televangalists with bad hair, sola scriptura, prohibition
against infant baptism, any mention of St. Paul and his letters, etc.

Round and round you go, monotonously repeating your Pavlovesque talking
points. What is your educational background, really? Do you really
have a hard time with logic? Read carefully, Learner... It's
irrelevant what is absent from the Didache because it's not a
comprehensive book of Church doctrine in the 1st century. Can you
understand this? If you're going to go on pretending the Didache is
something that it's not, then the burden is on your shoulder to prove it.
+++

>>It doesn't prohibit infant baptism (as modern-day Baptists do) nor does it
>>prohibit those other items you enumerated.

+++
Children are human beings, Learner. I asked you for the exact quote
prohibiting the baptism of infants in the Didache, and you didn't
provide it. As far as I'm concerned, I'll let the readers decide
whether you proved your point.
+++

+++
Guess what? Your fellow Protestants, the Lutherans and Presbyterians
and Anglicans and Methodists don't buy this innovative interpretation,
Learner. No one followed this prohibition before the uneducated
Anabaptists came along and deluded the lower classes. Plain and simple,
you misinterpret those passages. You've created an arbitrary doctrine
(prohibition against baptising infants) in direct contradiction to 1500
years of practice AND without any Patristic support AND without a single
Scriptural injuction against infant baptism. Rather than proceed from
common sense and sound reasoning, you pick the most unreasonable line of
thinking to support a contrived belief. This is what undermines your
entire theology.

The error in the Baptist prohibition against infant baptism is that they
misapply a standard that was meant for adults to an absolutist extreme
to infants as well. The Bible was not written to infants and is
therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the
care of their parents who can hear, understand, and believe.
Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between
baptising an infant and an adult believer - one has the need to repent,
the other does not.

Most telling in those passages you quoted from the NT where it mentions
that entire households were baptised is that they don't qualify what is
meant by "entire household" by saying adults only. We know that the
Greek word "oikos", translated "house" or "household," has traditionally
included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There
is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical
Greek, or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would
restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for
"house" carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of
the original Hebrew manuscripts uses this word when translating the
Hebrew word meaning the complete family, which would include children
and infants. Similarly, we know that the phrase "he and his house"
refers to the total family. The Bible never gives one example of the
baptism of a an adult who was raised in a Christian household. It is
important that Scripture also does not speak of an "age of
accountability or reason" when a child's capacity to believe the Gospel
is developed enough so that he can receive baptism. Neither does the
Bible state that every child is in a "suspended state of salvation"
until they have reached this age, which one would have to believe if he
held to the "age of accountability" theory.

Peter writes in Acts 2:38-39, "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let
every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar
off, as many as the Lord our God will call.' "

Peter explicitly says children were to be baptised - "every one of you"
includes "you and your children."

Luke 18:15-16 - "Then they also brought infants to Him that He might
touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus
called them to Him and said, 'Let the little children come to Me, and do
not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.' "

Christ here says the kingdom of God is for infants as well. The Greek
reads "Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe." The Greek word "brephe" means
"infants" — children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their
own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept
Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."

Then you read in John 3:5 that no one can enter the kindom of God unless
he is baptised ("Jesus answered, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless
one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
God.'"). Therefore, if the kingdom of God is for infants, and you can't
get in unless you been born of water and Spirit, then infant baptism is
proven to be taught by Christ.

Furthermore, baptism replaced the OT covenant of circumcision.
Circumcision was performed on infants, before they had any understanding
of God or the OT Law. If one converted to Judaism as an adult, then
there would be a mental component, a profession of belief, in addition
to the circumcision. Likewise with baptism, infants born from Christian
parents would be baptised. Adult converts would be required to repent
and confess the Faith when they were baptised.

Colossians 2:11-12 - "In Him you were also circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of
the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in
which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God,
who raised Him from the dead."

In the OT, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in
anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in
the NT, those born in Christian households can be baptized in
anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The
pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before
receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have
faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one
will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to
baptism as "the circumcision of Christ."

Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the
usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on
Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253,
condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until
the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of
Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned... nor
is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic"
(Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). In NO
Patristic writing anywhere is there any hint that infant baptism was an
innovation or anything less than a legitimate practice carried on since
the apostolic era.

Why, Learner, do we have absolutely no record of early Christian writers
condemning it? You infer something indirectly, completely outside of
the context of history, continuing practices, and the entirety of
Scripture. You opt for the most unlikely, most ridiculous belief
despite the evidence to the contrary. This is what Paul warns about
when writes of those untaught and twisted people who distort Scripture
to their own destruction. Furthermore, Baptists contradict themselves
on this. You don't condemn infants to hell because they don't exhibit
the faith that's necessary for salvation, yet where is the Scriptural
passage allowing this exception?

More Patristic evidence for infant baptism:

"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give
thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in
childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed
through the world without sins."
Aristides,Apology,15(A.D. 140),in ANF,X:277-278

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He
never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?"
[Note: If he was baptised 86 years previously, that's in the first
century. Not only that, it shows his parents were Christians before his
birth and the practice of infant baptism was passed along to them.]
Polycarp,Martyrdom of Polycarp,9(A.D. 156),in ANF,I:41

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who
through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and
youths, and old men."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixy-five years in the Lord."
Polycrates,Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7(A.D. 190),in
NPNF2,I:242

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can
answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their
parents answer or someone from their family."
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the
tradition of baptizing infants too."
Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9(A.D. 244),in JER,65

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage
of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there
were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing
in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem
superfluous."
Origen, Homily on Leviticus,8:3(post A.D. 244),in JUR,I:208

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to
be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that
the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think
one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the
eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in
council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think
is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.."
Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6(A.D. 251),in ANF,5:353-354

"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let
him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let
him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of
the weakness of nature?"
Gregory Nazianzen,Oration on Holy Baptism,40:17(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,7:365

"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what
have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious
neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too?
Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be
unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and
uninitaited."
Gregory Nazianzen,Oration on Holy Baptism,40:28(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,7:370

"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins."
Chrysostom John,Ad Neophytos,(A.D. 388),in LCF,169

"And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is
held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as
a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down
by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the
value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the
parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people,
and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was
enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized."
Augustine,On Baptism against the Donatist,4:24:31(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:461

"Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing
infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the
universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord
and His apostles,--they cannot avoid the further concession, that
infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being
washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby
incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be
reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and
redeemed, and enlightened."
Augustine,On forgiveness of sin, and baptism,39[26](A.D. 412),in NPNF1,V:30

"The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who
thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day,
that it was not the body but the soul which behoved to be saved from
perdition -- in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine,
but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along
with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child
may be properly baptized immediately after its birth"
Augustine,Epistle 166:8:23(A.D. 412),in NPNF1,I:531

"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants
fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized....let him be
anathema."
Council of Carthage,Canon 2,(A.D. 418),in Denzinger 101

"But with respect to trine immersion in baptism, no truer answer can be
given than what you have yourself felt to be right; namely that, where
there is one faith, a diversity of usage does no harm to holy Church.
Now we, in immersing thrice, signify the sacraments of the three days'
sepulture; so that, when the infant is a third time lifted out of the
water, the resurrection after a space of three days may be expressed."
Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],To Leander,Epistle 43(A.D. 591),in
NPNF2,XII:88
+++

+++
Answer my question why you believe in the Nicene Creed, which professes
belief in the Virgin Mary.
+++

>>The Didache?s description of the Eucharist with various symbols isn?t
>>incompatible with Orthodox theology, which states that the elements are
>>real AND symbolic. There can be many ways of describing the bread and
>>wine in metaphorical language though the objects in question are the
>>real blood and body of Christ; much like poetry uses metaphorical
>>language to express the mysteries of real objects like trees and stars.
>
>
> Once again, this is not an answer.
>
> Nowhere does the Didach even suggest that the bread is the literal
> body of Christ, or even compares it to the body of Christ. The Didache
> compares the bread made by gathering scattered grains to the Church,
> which is gathered into the Kingdom of God from all over the earth.
> That is an amazing difference between the Didache and the body-blood
> sacrifice of the Orthodoxy liturgy.
>
> Consequently this meal is not sacrifice, but a thanksgiving, which is
> why it
> was called a Eucharist. In Orthodoxy this thanksgiving, this
> demonstration
> of the life of the church, has changed into something quite different.

+++
I answered this question to a satisfactory extent for sober, honest minds.
+++

> It is also significant that the Didach Eucharist is a REAL MEAL, not
> some sort
> of little bite of bread and spoon of wine. This meal was not
> originally a "magic" ritual, but was a meal of communion of those in
> the church, and people could eat their fill.

+++
Where does it say it was a real meal? It says nothing about what you
are filled with. The context indicates you are filled with spiritual
food and drink, from the communion elements. It talks only about wine
and bread, and nothing more. I don't know what a meal is in your
household, but in mine we have meat and vegetables with our meals. It
also says you must be baptised and have to fast beforehand, and repent,
which are Orthodox practices, not Baptist.

This further illustrates you reading something that ain't there.
+++

>>Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that
>>Protestants have dismissed.
>
>
> Once again, this is an attack, not an answer. By the way, how do you
> know that Protestants do not fast? Perhaps some Protestants do fast,
> but they follow Christ's instructions:
>
> "When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they
> disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the
> truth, they have received their reward in full."
>
> I see little difference between the legalism of Orthodox fasting
> during Lent and Rammadan, or with the hypocrites that Jesus mentioned.

+++
You obviously don't see anything that would upset your preconceived
Baptist innovations. You'd rather turn the blinkers on than try to
learn something for a change. The Didache, your standard bearer for
early Christian thought, says converts are to repent and fast before
their baptisms. So answer the question you dodged: How many days do
Baptists fast before their baptisms?
+++

>>Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in addition to references to the
>>Church, unbroken continuous visible forms of the Church which you've
>>dismissed as nonsensical.
>
>
> So a Bishop of the Church which used the Didache would recognize your
> Bishop? I doubt it.

+++
More of your magical mind-reading of dead people.
+++

>>The entire Didache
>>is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
>>you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
>>Christianity which exists only in their minds. As Newman once said, the
>>farther back in history one studies, the lesser he remains a Protestant.
>
>
> The Didache stands as a witness against the claim that Orthodoxy can
> trace itself back to early Christianity. I have already shown that in

+++
No, it doesn't, and you've failed to demonstrate otherwise. In fact,
you've misread and misinterpreted every section that you've offered as
such a witness.
+++

> the Didache there is no "body and blood of Christ" Eucharist -
> contrary to Orthodox practice. This fact by itself, serously calls
> into question Orthodoxy's claim to be the original faith of
> Christianity. But there is more. In the Didache, there is no mention
> of the creation/veneration of icons - which was a later
> practice. There is no baptism of infants; there is preference for
> flowing water in baptism over water from a receptacle; there are
> "prophets" who were later removed from church practice and are not now
> found in Orthodoxy; there is no veneration of Mary; there is no
> veneration of saints; there is no hierarchical appointment of bishops,
> which are elected; and, there is an implied identity of bishops and
> presbyters.

+++
The word "priest" is a shortening of the word "presbyter." You
dishonestly snipped my responses to this repeated harangue of yours. I
will cut-n-paste it again. You can run from the truth, but you can't hide:

We don't lack those offices because they, along with saints, are not
offices in the sense of clergy. Furthermore, the Didache says:

"15:1 Elect, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the
Lord, men who are meek and not covetous, and true and approved, for they
perform for you the service of prophets and teachers."

This clearly says bishops and deacons perform the roles of prophets and

teachers. And we do elect our bishops. The Didache says nothing about
election by congregations.

Prophets were not eliminated. The Didache says bishops are to perform

the role of prophets. Also, it doesn't say anything about who conducts
the Eucharist. Note the absence of women, children, lepers, space
aliens, TeleTubbies, and blue-eyed carpenters in the celebration of the
Eucharist.

This is the conflation of roles and offices among evangelicals that I've

read in other debates. Those were not official offices in the
hierarchy. Bishops could and did perform the role of prophet, and the
Apostles could and some did perform the role of bishop. Eusebius writes
(History of the Church, p. 118):

"All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James
himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother,
were still alive..."

The Didache also mentions bishops performing the role of prophets in the

Church. You're providing a list of "roles" that could be played by
various Church offices, including regular lay persons, while at the same
time we have evidence that bishops and deacons existed during the time
of the Apostles. In the Didache (Chapter 15), we read about bishops and
deacons. Some scholars guesstimate the Didache was written as early as
50 A.D., which puts it in the same time frame as 1 Corinthians, if not a
bit earlier.

I don't know why you would subscribe to the most mind-bending theory,

that Christ's Apostles initiated one form of Church governance, then
suddenly here come the bad 'ol Orthodox Catholics who wipe it out and
institute an "incorrect tradition." Why would Christ allow the early
Church to be set up in one form and the later Church in another?

+++

>>The Didache (and Scripture) say a bishop should have one wife. What
>>this means is that a bishop shouldn?t be remarried if his wife dies, and
>>that he can?t be divorced. It does NOT mandate a bishop to be married,
>>nor does it prohibit the Church from requiring bishops to be unmarried.
>
>
> Huh? So being the husband of one wife *really* means being the
> husband of no wife?

+++
Again, you refuse to paste the supposed passage that mandates a bishop
to be married. As I wrote earlier, please continue on with this line of
illogical interpretation. It further undermines your credibility.
+++

>>And the Orthodox requirement for a bishop to be unmarried is merely a
>>discipline, not a doctrine. It violates nothing in Scripture.
>
>
> Really? There were married Bishops in the early Church - according to
> the
> Bible and Didache. There were also female Deacons, by the way. Who
> gave your Church the right to change Paul's words?

+++
You're being dishonest again. Provide the words that were changed.
You're refusal to do so speaks volumes about your credibility.
+++

>>This is a perfect example of what happens when someone makes an ignorant,
>>personal interpretation of Scripture. Your church leaders who are
>>married more than once are breaking this rule in Scripture. It?s your
>>group that has no resemblance to the early Church. In contrast, our
>>priests are required to follow this Biblical injunction to not remarry.
>
>
> Ignorance can often be excused. However, your Church has a problem
> that goes beyond simple ignorance. The Orthodox "discipline" of
> unmarried Bishops exists for economic reasons, not spiritual reasons.
> Emperor Justinian's Code of Civil Law forbade anyone who had children
> - or even nephews - to be consecrated a
> Bishop. Clearly, there was a great deal of concern that a hereditary
> leadership could emerge in the Church and measures were taken to
> prevent this from happening.
>
> However, times have changed. The threat of a father passing the
> Bishop's office to his son is unimaginable in today's Church. The
> Church should return to the Biblical [and first century Church] model
> of married Bishops.

+++
There was never a model of mandated marriages. Besides, who cares what
you think we should do.
+++

> Once again, why does your Church ban married men from this office?

+++
It's a discipline, something Baptists are to lazy to appreciate or
understand.
+++

> There is a huge difference between the requirement that a Bishop must
> be the husband of one wife [as Paul taught] and the requirement that a
> Bishop must be the husband of no wife [as the Orthodox Church
> teaches].

+++
You're being dishonest again. Provide the words that mandated a bishop
to be married. You're refusal to do so speaks volumes about your
credibility.
+++

> The answer is that both Orthodoxy and Protestantism evolved over time
> and share little resemblance to early Christianity.
>
>
>>>Well, the Bible also mentions the nation of Israel. Is modern Israel
>>>the same as ancient Israel? Do they have the same form of government?
>>> Does the average Israeli have the same religious beliefs as the
>>>Israelites of 2000 years ago? If so, do they conduct sacrifices?
>
>
>
>>Again, another repetitive fallacy of yours.
>
>
> Not at all, it is an illustration of the fallacy of your beliefs. Is
> the Orthodox Church today the same, at least in doctrin and teachings,
> as the first Century Church? The answer is no.

+++
You're being dishonest again. You're inability to substantiate your
claims speaks volumes about your credibility.
+++

>>>And why do you assume, aside from simple arrogance, that this refers
>>>to your Church and not others?
>>
>>You spend all this time thus far disparaging the Church - saying it
>>didn't exist at the time of the Apostles (despite Scriptural evidence),
>>to saying the Church of the Bible doesn't exist today - and now you seem
>>to be edging towards the fact that the Church existed and continues to
>>exist today and must be heeded as Christ commanded. This is progress...
>
>
> Once again, this does not answer the question: why do you assume that
> the Church mentioned in the Bible is the same as your Church? Other
> Churches make the same claim, so why is yours any better than theirs?

+++
Because ours has been around since the 1st century. The Churches you
read about in the Bible - Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Antioch,
Jerusalem, etc - still exist today and they are in the Orthodox Church.
This is much better than your ahistorical cult, Unlearned One.
+++

>>You need to ask yourself why Christ tells you to heed the Church. He
>>tells you to seek out this authority... but authority for what? If, as
>>you believe, there's no right or wrong doctrine, then why does Christ
>>order you to do as the Church tells you? Think carefully about it, as
>>it's very important.
>
>
> Once again, you dodge the question. Why do you assume that your
> Church is the one that Christ is talking about?
>
> Learner

+++
Because ours has been around since the 1st century. The Churches you
read about in the Bible - Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Antioch,
Jerusalem, etc - still exist today and they are in the Orthodox Church.
This is much better than your ahistorical cult, Unlearned One.

You're the one who is dodging this passage, while continuing to snip it
in the vain hope it will disappear. I will post it again:

Christ orders you to listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he
refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to
hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

You ignore Scripture, you disobey the Lord. Your religious club is a
fraud of dangerous proportions, deceiving people that their salvation is
gained once and for all by a simple twenty second prayer, and that their
children shouldn't be baptised, in direct contradiction to the Lord's
demand that infants be brought to Him.
+++

[learner]

"Al" <aggr...@SPAMechoes.net> wrote in message news:<cjsql...@enews1.newsguy.com>...

So Alfred, there were no Christians prior to the penning of the Nicene Creed?

Learner

[Al]

"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...
> "Al" <aggr...@SPAMechoes.net> wrote in message
news:<cjsql...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> > "learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I don't need the Nicene Creed.
> >
> > ***Then you don't have the True Statement of the True Faith. That's it.
> > Plain and simple.
>
> So Alfred, there were no Christians prior to the penning of the Nicene
Creed?

***Don't go there. Your stupidity is showing.

[Joe Orthodox]

Previous conversation in another post in this thread:

Me: I take it you reject the Nicene Creed?
Learner: No.

And in another post in this thread:

Me: Don't you realize that denying the Trinity and the divinity of
Christ are heresies?

Learner: Sure.

[Joe Orthodox]

You raised some thoughtful points, Alice. Thank you.

BTW, Islam also denies Christ was crucified and resurrected, as well as
the Trinity. The basis for this religion is that the angel Gabriel
appeared to Mohammed and told him Christianity was a lie, Jesus wasn't
God and wasn't crucified or resurrected. As St. John Damscene wrote,
this has the markings of a visit from the Evil One, not one of the
Lord's messengers, which makes Mohammed an anti-Christ.

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<Pbl8d.95205$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> >>>>12) Protestants don?t embrace heresies.

A strawman argument that I never made.

> > I don't need the Nicene Creed. Instead of creating confusing
> > doctrines
> > [which confuses and confounds many people], I could simply point to
> > the Bible which clearly tells us that the Father is God (Phil. 1:2),
> > the Son is God (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), and the Holy Spirit is God
> > (Acts 5:3-4). How this "works", I simply do not know, nor should I
> > attempt to define and delineate what cannot be defined and delineated.

> You're being dishonest again.

Really, et vous?

> You wrote in another post in this thread:

> Me: I take it you reject the Nicene Creed?
> Learner: No.

Which, in English, means that I do not reject it. Saying that I do
not need the Nicene Creed to explain the Triune nature of God is not
the same as rejecting the Creed. You really need to work on your
reading comprehension skills.

> And in another post in this thread:

> Me: Don't you realize that denying the Trinity and the divinity of
> Christ are heresies?

> Learner: Sure.

See above.

> >>I challenge you to go into a JW board and try to
> >>prove to them Christ wasn't impaled on a stake.

> > I challenge you to go to the Islam board and convince them that Christ
> > was nailed to a cross. People believe what they wish, regardless of
> > evidence.

> As evidenced by your deflections, fallacious rants, and abundance of
> sophistry.

Oh, I see. When you challenge me to do something, it is a "Triumph of
Orthodoxy", yet when I return a challenge, it is a deflection, a
fallacious rant, and sophistry.

<meaningless insults snipped>

> >>>Ever hear of neo-Platonic Paganism which believes that prayers can be
> >>>transmitted by matter to their "prototype"? Your veneration of an
> >>>icon is based on the same philosophy as the veneration of a statue of
> >>>Apollo by an ancient Greek.

> >>No, it's not.

Yes it is. When you venerate an icon, do you believe that the
veneration stops at a piece of wood, or do you believe that your
veneration is transmitted to the "prototype" of the icon in heaven.
St. John of Damascus said that the icon is an image of the "prototype"
as did the Quinisext Council.

So, why don't you answer the question, instead of going to some lame
Orthodox site to cut and paste stuff that has nothing to do with the
question?

> >It's based on the worship of the Incarnation as a
> >>material human being, and fully accepting God's reconciliation of the
> >>spiritual with the material.

That is nothing more than a fallacy of a false dilemma - I either bow
to an image, or I deny the Incarnation. In reality, I can accept the
Incarnation without ever venerating an icon, or I could reject both
ideas on whatever grounds I choose. Accepting one idea, in no way,
forces me to accept the other.

>>> It's also following the Seventh Ecumenical
>>> Council and rejecting the heresy of Iconoclasm, a heresy that's in
the
>>> Baptist front pocket.

Both the abolition of icons under Constantine V, and their restoration
under Irene, were largely based on Byzantine politics, rather than
theology.

St. John, who was the philosophical power behind this council,
believed that a real image of Jesus existed, so icons of Christ would
show his "likeness". Sadly, no such thing ever existed and any icon
of Christ is more the imagination of the painter that a true
"likeness".

John said:

"Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the
exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a
certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the
original."

So, aside from your bogus Edessa cloth, do you know what Jesus looked
like?

> > Sure it is. Wrap in up in anything that you like, you are still
> > conveying veneration to a proto-type. And that is pure neo-Platonic
> > Paganism, regardless of how you wish to justify it.

> I'm still waiting on you to produce Christ's bones or a 3rd century copy
> of Exodus.

I am still waiting for you to answer a question instead of resorting
to your typical deflections and sophistry. The topic at hand is the
Apostlicity of Icons and you have no examples of a first century Icon.
Whether, or not, we can/cannot find Christ's bones, and autographed
copy of Exodus, Noah's Ark, or the Holy Grail does not excuse you from
the problem. If Icons were always a part of the Church, where are the
Icons from the first, or even the second century? Where is there
mention of Icons in any first century text?

> The Bible is nothing more than an icon in black and white, and the cross
> hanging in your Nondenom warehouse is nothing more than an unpainted

> icon. It?s a symbol that communicates doctrine.

The Bible is a book and the cross a symbol, they are not icons. Once
again, both St. John of Damascus and the Quinisext Council taught that
the icons are an image of the "prototype", who is in heaven. No
Protestant kisses the Bible or Cross, believing that their veneration
is transmitted, in a neo-Platonic way, to some "prototype".

Your remark concerning the "Nondenom warehouse", shows your Orthodox
"short man's complex". Any faith or belief can be distorted and
mocked. For example, a "Nondenom" Protestant could ignore art history
and mock your Church for being gaudy and garish. Your "fallacious
rant" is on the same level, and is equally childish.

> Furthermore, universal
> literacy is a recent luxury in human history, and icons performed a
> critical role in communicating doctrines and Scripture, as well as
> provided examples of humans throughout the history of the Faith who
> lived pious lives and thereby teaching us that such a life is possible.
> Icons act as a reinforcement of proper living.

Religious art is not the same as icons. Once again, both St. John of
Damascus and the Quinisext Council taught that the icons are an image
of the "prototype", who is in heaven.

> By denying icons, you are denying the Incarnation of God in Christ.

Discussed earlier. This is nothing more than the fallacy of the false
dilemma. I could accept one, or the other, or both, or none of the
above.

<large amounts of Orthodox cut and paste apologetics snipped>

> > Whether, or not, Purgatory is a mandatory doctrine is not the issue.
> > As usual, you reply to the un-asked question. The issue is that
> > Tradition can be used to support/deny this teaching.

> It is the issue because you are unable to discern doctrine from beliefs
> and practices.

As usual, you dodge the question. Whether, or not, Purgatory is a
mandatory doctrine is not the issue. The issue, which you cannot
answer, is that Tradition can be used to support/deny the existence of
Purgatory, or Toll-Houses, for that matter. Whether these ideas are
doctrines, beliefs, practices,or silly notions is not the issue. The
issue is the effectiveness of Tradition.

> >>Secondly, neither Catholics nor Orthodox deny the other side maintains
> >>legitimate apostolic succession, or that Holy Tradition exists, or the
> >>Eucharist is the real blood and body of Christ, or the full set of
> >>sacraments, or the process of salvation, or the reality and necessity of
> >>the visible Church.

> > Which is also not the question at hand.

> There is no question at hand. There's only your fallacious rants and
> attempts to pretend no one "answers" your questions. This behavior goes
> back two years. And don't try to say it was another "Learner" (I
> remember you pulling that one before, too). Your posting address then
> was nat...@40hotmail.com, just as it is now.

There are no questions because you have no answers. You simply raise
"strawman arguments", such as the one above, to dodge any and all
serious questions. When I attempt to clarify the issues, you go off
on a "fallacious rant", not I.

If you are any indication of the spiritual growth of those in the
Orthodox Church, then I am very glad and thankful that I left!

> Again, I asked you to point out the conflicting doctrines, which you
> repeatedly snip in the hope your harangue will suffice.

1. Purgatory

The Catholics believe that Purgatory is based on Tradition,
specifically 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, and the works of a number of Chuch
Fathers who taught Purgatory to the early Christians Catholics also
claim that Purgatory is referred to in 1 Corinthians 3:15.

The Orthodox reject this, so whose Tradition is correct?

2. Papal Primacy

The Catholics believe that it is based on Tradition, especially Pope
Clement of Rome (90-99) letter to your Church in Corinth, urging their
submission to his ecclesiastical superiors and St. Ignatius of Antioch
(117) letter to the Roman Church, in which he mentions her supremacy.

The Roman Catholics say the following:

"But if we consult the divine tradition which ever recognized the
Bishops of Rome as the successors of St. Peter, we will never find,
except in the schismatical East, the slightest allusion to this false
theory. It states
unanimously that the Popes held their supreme office for the sole
reason that they were St. Peter's successors."

So whose Tradition is correct?

I doubt that you have an answer, so you will either

a) Rant, and then claim that I am ranting
b) Ignore the answer and ask the question again
c) Give an answer, but not to the issue at hand
d) All of the above

> > So these three Bishops were all alone, off in their own little world,
> > in their little heresies? That's funny!

Once again, you dodge a question. Were the Bishops the only members
of the Church in a state of heresy?

> >>This doesn't say, "We believe in a bunch of Churches, without any
> >>Apostolic succession, and none more true than any other."

> > It also doesn't say "We believe in a group of "autonomous and
> > autocephalus" Churches".

> Yes, that's exactly what they created, and these Churches constitute the
> Body of Christ. Again, you think that by deflection and fallacious
> smoke blowing it will confuse others.

But that is not what the Creed says. You are attempting to project
the current structure of your Church back in time.

> > I haven't been around for that long, so perhaps it was someone else.
> > The question, which has never been answered, is: Where was the Holy
> > Spirit when all 3 Eastern Sees were all involved in a variety of
> > heresies?

> You're being dishonest again. You've been here since October of 2002.
> Your posts are saved by Google. Every single monotonous rant you repeat
> today appears to have come from your talking points of two years ago.
> So much for your learning curve.

Whatever. Just answer the question, where was the Holy Spirit when
all 3 Eastern Sees were all involved in a variety of heresies? The
Orthodox concept of the "visible Church" is self negating due to these
heresies. Orthodoxy, as a visible entity cut itself off from historic
Christianity during these heresies.

If Orthodoxy believes that the eternal truth of God's revelation in

Jesus Christ is preserved in its full integrity in the living
tradition of the Church, under the guidance and inspiration of the

Holy Spirit, then how did any heresy arise, yet alone gain power?

> The Holy Spirit was in the Orthodox Church. You're committing the
> fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Your reasoning is proven wrong by
> counter-examples...

Where was the Holy Spirit when all 3 Eastern Sees were all involved in
a variety of heresies?

> The truth is that many despicable people believe and trust in the Holy

> Spirit, the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ but it doesn?t have any

> relevance on the merits of those doctrines. If you want perfect people

> to illustrate Christ?s doctrines, then you?re in for a major
> disappointment.

I agree, yet based on the Orthodox Church's claims concerning itself,
I can only conclude that Orthodoxy is not the "True Church".

Throughout its many heresies, Orthodoxy has not believed and
proclaimed the complete and integral faith delivered to the saints by
Jesus Christ. It has not preserved this faith without alteration or
diminution.

> > No, all Churches descend, in one way or another, from the Pauline
> > Church.

> No they do not. You've made no attempt to even connect your cult with
> the Pauline Church. The Pauline Church included the Churches of
> Corinth, Thessalonica, and Galatia, all which have remained firmly
> Orthodox and are under the Greek Orthodox jurisdiction today.

Yes they do. Most Churches can point back to the first century a find
one, or another, belief or practice in their Church. The idea that
the Orthodox Church is the "true Church" that can trace its doctrines,

beliefs and practices back to the Apostles and, ultimately, to Jesus

Christ; and, has preserved the Apostolic faith without change or
corruption. History clearly refutes such a
claim.

> > Through in the art of answering questions that have not been raised,
> > this sounds a lot more like you!

What question have I failed to answer? Once again, I see the "fruits"
of Orthodoxy in your words - making me glad that I left!

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<yrn8d.95216$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> > That is an answer but, sadly, it is not an answer to the issue at
> > hand. My response had nothing to do with whether or not Anglican
> > apostolic succession is valid. The point is that an institution can
> > evolve while keeping its historical name.

> +++
> First of all, I don't know what beliefs and practices this parish had in
> the 1700's and what they do today. You recite a trivial truism, "Things
> change," and erroneously conclude that a two-year old is a different
> human than his mature fifty year old self.
>
> Secondly, you still confuse practices with doctrines. I'm not going to
> address phantom practices and doctrines that you refuse to provide.
> +++

So, the Anglican Church, with its female Priests and Bishops and
innovative beliefs, is the same as the 18th Church?

> > This is goes beyond your normal habit of answering a different
> > question, rather than the issue at hand. This response involves the
> > problem of reading comprehension. I am referring to the First Century
> > Church, not 4th century (and later) Church which evolved under the
> > influence of Byzantine politics.
>
> +++
> It's not about reading comprehension, it's about you reciting either a
> trivial truism ("change happens") or an outright fallacy ("something
> evolved, therefore it's not the same thing anymore"), and then draw
> conclusions that don't follow. You're trying to say that early
> Christians, before the First OeC, worshipped peacefully together and
> there wasn't such a concept of right belief (formally known as
> "orthodox") and wrong belief (formally known as a "heresy"). This
> simply isn't true, Learner. Those various factions were ripping the
> empire apart with their squabbles. That was the reason why Councils
> were called.

Empire? What Christian Empire existed in the first, or even second
century? Read a book, or at least, read what I wrote - I am referring

to the First Century Church, not 4th century (and later) Church which
evolved under the influence of Byzantine politics.

As far as people worshipping together, you might want to pick up a
history book once in a while. Scholars have recognized since the time
of Professor Bauer that the terms "orthodoxy" and "heresy" to not
accurately represent the situation in the first centuries of
Christianity. At this time, there was far more diversity in belief
than in later times. Many people would have been expelled from the
Church after the Nicene Council who, in earlier times, would have
happily worshipped together with those who would later accept the
Creed. In the early Church, there were theological debates, however
there was no great desire for the intricate and divisive definitions
that came later.

> You continue on implying that there existed a mass of peaceloving
> Protestants who numbered in more than 30,000 diverse sects who didn't
> know the concept of wrong belief, until the government, for some unknown
> reason, decided to force one minority doctrine upon everyone.

Another of your "rants" and "strawman arguments". See the answer
above.

> You also are inconsistent in you treatment of the 1st century Church.
> On the one hand, you continue to harp on the comprehensive nature of the
> Didache in expressing a set of unified, and complete, set of doctrines
> which bear no resemblance to the Orthodox Church, and then you
> contradict yourself and write the 1st century Church embraced "far more
> diversity in belief than in later periods." Which is it, Learner? Are
> those beliefs contained in the Didache or not?

The Didache represents one faction of early Christianity. The
Gnostics represent another. There were also early Christians who
remained closer to Judaism and did not believe in a virgin birth (the
Ebionites, for example. There was no monolithic Church in the first
century.

> In addition, what is meant by "later periods"? The 5th century? But in
> other posts you dispute that there was any unity in Orthodox doctrine in
> that period, or any other period, by your monotonous two-year old
> fallacious rant about heretical bishops.

Later means after Constantine and Justinian made Christianity the
state religion. Even during this period, the Church had a variety of
beliefs and practices which were standardized under the sword and
purse of Byzantium.

One could say that this was all the work of the Holy Spirit, but the
fallacy of the argument by fiat could also be used by the Muslims who
conquered Byzantium.

> In what kind of just universe does God allow a true doctrine of
> salvation ("once saved/always saved") float around undocumented in the
> 1st century, and then it mysteriously disappears well before the first
> Nicene Council (imposed by that terrible Byzantine state, no doubt)
> until that murderer Calvin "discovers" it in the 1500's?

That is a very interesting question. The human race [based on the
oldest fossil] has been around for 160,000 years. Christianity, in
whatever flavor you pick, has been around for no longer than 2,000
years, or 1.25% of human history.

So, In what kind of "just universe" would God allow this to happen?

> Your entire line of argumentation is incoherent.

And what is yours?

> > So, thank you for proving my point! There were a number of different
> > groups who held different opinions about who Jesus was and what he
> > taught. And these differences continued until the politics of
> > Byzantium hammered them out.
>
> +++
> Say what? Those different opinions were wrong (i.e.heretical). No
> Orthodox denied such existed, or such ever ceased to exist. It appears
> you're trying to say it's ok to have wrong doctrines because wrong
> doctrines have existed since the 1st century. If you think adopting
> wrong doctrines merits a brownie point, I'll award you a bucket load of
> them.
> +++

Nice dodge. The point was that there were a wide range of opinions
concerning who Jesus was and what He said. Whether these ideas were
"orthodox" or "heretical" are an interesting issue.

When modern scholars speak of "orthodoxy," they refer to the form of
Christianity which eventially gained supremacy over other forms of
Christianity (mostly from the 4th century). "Heresy" refers to those
forms which were displaced. These terms have nothing to do with good
or bad or correct or incorrect and implies no purity or correctness of
doctrine. In early times,
groups now considered "heretics" considered themselves "orthodox" in
the sense of correctness.

It is nothing more than a matter of which group won, which group
selected its "predecessors" from the available texts, and which group
wrote the history. He who writes history in the church has the
privilege of declaring what is and is not heresy, whether it is
correct or not.

> > Which, once again, is not the issue. These passages also indicate
> > that were a number of different groups who held different opinions
> > about who Jesus was and what he taught.
> >
> > It is also interesting to note that Paul's Epistles [which were the
> > earliest NT Scriptures] say nothing of the virgin birth.
>
> +++
> Again, make note that you snipped the passage in question. It clearly
> states those different opinions were about Paul's Epistles and OT
> Scipture that "untaught and unstable people twist to their own
> destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

See above.

> And why do you believe in the Nicene Creed, which states Christ was born
> from the Virgin Mary??? Are you now admitting that you accept
> non-Biblical doctrines??? Why do you believe in the Virgin Mary,
> Learner, since it's not in the Paul's Epistles? Make up your mind -
> either you accept or reject the Nicene Creed.

Well Joe, I am sorry that I moved you from outside of your
intellectual comfort zone. I am not denying Mary's virginity. What I
was attempting to do was to show the development of this idea from the
earlist NT texts [Paul's Epistles and Mark] which did not mention it,
to later works [Matthew] which did.

> And once again, you try to divert from the Scriptural material I posted
> by dropping a plug about the virgin birth. Make note that you had
> nothing to say about the abundance of passages I posted that prove your
> innovative "once saved/always saved" mythology isn't based on the Bible.

I am not sure why you constantly harp on the "once saved/always saved
mythology". I am not sure of it and not all Protestants accept it.
In any case, it does sound better than your Church's "theosis"
mythology.

> > Which is rather obvious. Church Fathers were selected because they
> > supported one, or another, beliefs of the Byzantine Imperial Church.
> > It was a simple case of backward reckoning, or "cherry picking" quotes
> > which supported a given belief.
>
> +++
> What were these core beliefs of this Imperial Church that they forced
> the majority of the Church Fathers to write about and then vote for,
> Learner? More of your off-the-cuff unsubstantiated comments.

Another "strawman". I did not say that the Byzantine Government
forced anyone to write anything. There were "Proto-Orthodox" writers
who were into various
theologies and doctrines. They were not in perfect continuity with
the brand of Christianity that became dominant after the 4th century.
Even among the "Proto-Orthodox" some were later discarded as not being
suffienctly in keeping with later belief (Tertullian and Origen among
them).

The Byzantine Church Fathers also did not always agree. St. Gregory
of Nyssa's works dangerously approach Universalism, so while some of
his works are cited by the Church, others are ignored.

> +++
> You've already posted this, and I adequately posted the replies from St.
> John Damascene and St. Leontius. The absolute majority of bishops and
> Fathers supported the theology of icons, evidenced not just by their
> writings, but by the 7th Ecumenical Council. Not only that, your
> Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran brethren disagree with the nonsense
> you write about icons.
> +++

No, that is not what happened.

There was no early Christian testimony in favor of icons, in fact, the
testimony was against them. That is why in the Iconoclast period the
opponents of icons could find early support for their position, but
the
Iconophiles could not. In other words, one cannot find any support
for the making and veneration of icons among the early Christian
writers, but one can find a line of opponents. So of course those
opponents are not "Fathers."

The whole issue of icons was one of imperial authority. The resolution
of the issue moved from one viewpoint to the other and back, until
finally an Empress Irene, who favored icons, imposed her view of the
matter - and veneration of icons became official Orthodox doctrine.
To support icons we have the inadequate apology of John of Damascus,
who gave us a new doctrine unlike anything known to the early
Christians.

> > What about Origen or Tertullian?
>
> +++
> What about them?
> +++

Why are they not Church Fathers?

> > The "filter" which determined the "truth" of Orthodoxy was the 4th
> > century Byzantine State. Emperor Constantine, and his successors,
> > picked a faction to form his Imperial Church.
>
> +++
> No, no. The filter was conciliar consensus. You've failed to provide
> evidence for any Orthodox doctrine that we follow that was enforced upon
> the majority by a tyrannical minority until this minority viewpoint
> became the majority.
> +++

No, the filter was the Byzantine State. The State usually did not
really want to impose any particular view, it simply wanted the Church
to be a tool of the State, so disagreements were not good and had to
be ironed out.

> > The state sponsored works of these "Fathers" are fairly consistent
> > (except perhaps for Gregory of Nyssa dabbling with extreme
> > Universalism), and they looked to the ancient fathers (ie Polycarp),
> > when it suited their agenda, while they called others heretics (ie
> > Origen).
>
> +++
> More of your unsubstantiated hot air.
> +++

And more of your dodging the question.

> > The Orthodox Church begins with the 4th century "Fathers", and looks
> > back to the writings of the early Church for support. This is nothing
> > more than an argument in search of a conclusion.
>
> +++
> Interesting. Now you say the Orthodox Church begins in the 4th century.
> Up in the thread you said it began in 1054. Your wrong on both
> counts, predictably. The OC was founded at the Pentacost, and you can
> read about our first parishes in the NT in Corinth, Galatia,
> Thessalonica, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and elsewhere.

I said that the Orthodox Church begins WITH [not in] the 4th
century....

You should go to your nearest community college and take a reading
comprehension class.

> To state that someone explains and clarifies a doctrine by providing
> written evidence of historical precedent for the doctrine is a trivial
> observation. This is the only reasonable thing to do, Learner. What's
> not reasonable is to invent a new doctrine, and completely disregard
> previously held beliefs and theological writings, while singling out ONE
> document and proof-texting it to death and out of context of everything
> else. This is what your Baptist church has done. If you believe that's
> the honest means to form doctrine, that's your problem. What's you've
> failed to do is demonstrate that a thoroughly researched and rigorously
> defended doctrine in a council of bishops was adopted which contradicted
> previously held belief and the majority of Church Father writings.
> +++

That is also what Orthodoxy has done, especially in relation to Icons
- which were not a part of the early Church.

> > Wrong. Both the text and interpretation of the Constitution would
> > most likely shock the authors of the original text. The Constitution
> > is not the same as the one penned in the 18th century, although both
> > have the same name.
>
> +++
> Here you go again with this "shocked" mind-reading BS.

There you go dodging the question.

> Your fallacious reasoning remains exposed by counter-example. You deny
> the authority and legitimacy of the Constitution and the Presidency
> because they've evolved. Because they've changed over time, consistent
> with the intent of their creators that they would evolve within the
> living mechanisms created, you deny those items today didn't exist 200
> years ago.

Another "strawman". I do not deny the Constitution or the Office of
the Presidency. They are supposed to evolve over time. The Orthodox
Church is not evolutionary according to its own claims: "Orthodoxy
believes and proclaims that the complete and integral faith delivered
to the saints by Jesus Christ has been preserved without alteration or

diminution only within the communion of the Orthodox Church."

Evolution involves alteration.

> Go ahead and continue on with this form of reasoning. It undermines
> everything you write.
> +++

My reasoning is much more sound than yours.

> +++
> The apostolic doctrines, beliefs, and practices remain intact in the

> Orthodox Church today and you've not demonstrated otherwise.....

That is an easy task.

The veneration of icons is clearly an area in which Orthodoxy has
absolutely nothing in common with the early Christian church. Some
claim that icons are "in the spirit" of early Christianity - however
this is simply not true. One cannot adopt a dogma that anathematizes
those who do not venerate icons [7th Ecumenical Council] while at the
same time claiming to have the same faith as the earliest church and
the apostles, who never said one word advocating the making or use of
icons.

> > Once again, this is an answer, but not to the issue at hand. How do
> > you pervert the language of a Bishop having one wife to the
> > requirement that they have no wife? Why does your Church twist Paul's
> > words? Perhaps he was talking about your Church in the
> > afore-mentioned quotes!
>
> +++
> What is your problem? Where is your thinking organ? Nowhere does it say

> that a bishop is required to be married.... Provide the

> exact quote, Learner, that mandates a bishop to be married.
> +++

Show me where Paul said that a Bishop must be the husband of NO wife.
Your problem is that you must twist Paul's words to conform to the
teachings of your idol - the Orthodox Church.

By accepting only men with NO wives as Bishops, your Church [as in the
case of the Icons discussion above] cuts itself off from the early
Church and becomes something very different. Rant, dodge and raise as
many "strawman" arguments as you can, you simply cannot refute the
facts.

> > You have "corrected" me? You have yet to answer a single issue!
> > Second, do you accuse anyone who questions your Church of a
> > "harangue"? Why is it that moral implications must be made for those
> > who question your Church?
>
> +++
> I accuse someone of mindless harangues when he repeats the same
> fallacious nonsense, while pretending he's raising issues that haven't
> been answered. This is the typical dishonest discussion that you seem
> to be unable to avoid. I responded to your "questions" multiple times
> (and not just me, plenty others over the last two years), and you in
> turn snip the answers, and repeat your talking points. Scriptural
> passages are provided that prove your innovative beliefs are false, you
> in turn snip those passages and whine that no one answered your
> "questions." Grow up.
> +++

The problem is that any answer is not necessarily the right answer.
For example, you usual tactics are: cut and paste the same tired
apologetics from some Orthodox website, or "just say anything." No
matter what, respond to any issue with rhetoric, "strawman" arguments
and insults.

> > Once again, you are answering a claim that wasn't made. I never said
> > that the Didach was "all-comprehensive". What I find amazing is that
> > many "pillars" of Orthodoxy, such as the "real presence", icons, and
> > veneration of the Saints are conspicuously absent in the Didache.
> > These are not minor issues.
>
> +++
> It says nothing about the Trinity, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, or
> the nature of Christ's divinity, once saved/always saved lies, alter
> calls, Baptist televangalists with bad hair, sola scriptura, prohibition
> against infant baptism, any mention of St. Paul and his letters, etc.

Early Christians wouldn't have understood the term "Trinity" until
Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or Tertullian (A.D. 220) coined it. The
term "Trinity", once saved/always saved lies, alter calls, Baptist
televangalists with bad hair, sola scriptura were all later
developments.

As were icons, prayers to the saints, tacky chandeliers and effeminate
vestments for Priests.

> Round and round you go, monotonously repeating your Pavlovesque talking
> points. What is your educational background, really? Do you really
> have a hard time with logic?

I am a Doctoral student, and you?

> Read carefully, Learner... It's
> irrelevant what is absent from the Didache because it's not a
> comprehensive book of Church doctrine in the 1st century. Can you
> understand this? If you're going to go on pretending the Didache is
> something that it's not, then the burden is on your shoulder to prove it.
> +++

Once again, I never claimed it to be comprehensive. Although I find
it very interesting that "pillars" of Orthodoxy such as the "real
presence", icons, and veneration of the Saints are nowhere to be found
in the Didache. But then again, these aren't in the Bible either.

> >>It doesn't prohibit infant baptism (as modern-day Baptists do) nor does it
> >>prohibit those other items you enumerated.

> +++
> Children are human beings, Learner.

But they are not proper objects of baptism.

> I asked you for the exact quote
> prohibiting the baptism of infants in the Didache, and you didn't
> provide it. As far as I'm concerned, I'll let the readers decide
> whether you proved your point.
> +++

Unless you are willing to make an infant fast for 48 hours, the
Didache does not teach infant baptism. If infant baptism was the norm
in the early Church, then why does the Didache NOT contain any
teachings on the subject? Once again, the silence of the Didache is
deafening for the claims of your idol - the Orthodox Church.

> > All of these passage associate baptism with hearing, believing and
> > glorifying God - things that infants cannot do. In Acts 8, the people
> > at Samaria "heard and believed" the good news and were baptized. The
> > Scriptures specify that those baptized were "men and women" - not
> > infants.
>
> +++
> Guess what? Your fellow Protestants, the Lutherans and Presbyterians
> and Anglicans and Methodists don't buy this innovative interpretation,
> Learner.

Which is their right in a free society.

> No one followed this prohibition before the uneducated
> Anabaptists came along and deluded the lower classes. Plain and simple,
> you misinterpret those passages.

Really? Were Mary and Joseph among these "deluded the lower classes"?
Why wasn't Jesus baptized as an infant?

> You've created an arbitrary doctrine
> (prohibition against baptising infants) in direct contradiction to 1500
> years of practice AND without any Patristic support AND without a single
> Scriptural injuction against infant baptism. Rather than proceed from
> common sense and sound reasoning, you pick the most unreasonable line of
> thinking to support a contrived belief. This is what undermines your
> entire theology.

Historian Augustus Neander wrote: "Faith and baptism were always
connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree
probable...that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this
period... That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not
earlier than Irenaeus [140-204 C.E.], a trace of infant baptism
appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition
in the course of the third century, is evidence rather *against* than
*for* the admission of its apostolic origin."

Dr. Neander is a scholar, but then again who are you going to believe,
the facts of history or your idol - the Orthodox Church?

> The error in the Baptist prohibition against infant baptism is that they
> misapply a standard that was meant for adults to an absolutist extreme
> to infants as well. The Bible was not written to infants and is
> therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the
> care of their parents who can hear, understand, and believe.
> Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between
> baptising an infant and an adult believer - one has the need to repent,
> the other does not.

I doubt that you will grasp this, but here goes. The Council of
Carthage in 418 firmly established infant baptism by decreeing: "If
any man says that newborn children need not be baptized ... let him be
anathema." Is it the place of your Church to do this?

This decree cuts the Orthodox Church from early Christianity, such as
those people who followed the Didache. In fact, taking the Council of
Carthage to its illogical extreme, Mary and Joseph should have had
Christ baptized as an infant.

> Most telling in those passages you quoted from the NT where it mentions
> that entire households were baptised is that they don't qualify what is

> meant by "entire household" by saying adults only....

<cut and paste Orthodox apologetics snipped>

Once again, your Church is little better than the JWs- pick one verse
out and build a doctrine on it. All of the passages which mention the
baptisms of families and households associate baptism with:

1. hearing,
2. believing,
3 glorifying God

Infants cannot do these things. In Acts 8, the people at Samaria

"heard and believed" the good news and were baptized. The Scriptures

specify that those baptized were "men and women" - not infants. All
of the Scripture twisting and arguments from silence do not remove
these facts which are seen when one reads Acts in context, instead of
isolated on verse.

> In the OT, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in

> anticipation of the Jewish faith ....

If you view infant Baptism as a "covenantally" faithful act and not as
an act that "saves" the child, then you can make this analogy. The
Jews do not believe that circumcision "saved" the child.

> Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century....

>
> Why, Learner, do we have absolutely no record of early Christian writers
> condemning it?

Infant baptism came about sometime during the middle of the 3rd
century A.D. as a result, in part, of the Council of Carthage (254
A.D.). It is interesting to note that Manicheanism (which believed
that the human body was dirty and corrupt) began to arise at about the
same time. The Council of Carthage in 418 firmly established infant
baptism by decreeing: "If any man says that newborn children need not
be baptized ... let him be anathema."

By and large, infant baptism was not practiced in the early Church,
with the possible exception of Polycarp who may have been baptized as
an infant and, possibly, if we liberally interpret one of the quotes
from Irenæus conerning re-birth.

The Didache refers to people who can rehearse and fast for 1-2 day,
thus eliminating infants.

Tertullian write in "On Baptism", Chapter XVIII that only "teachable
children" were proper objects of baptism.

<Huge amount of polemics - often the 4th century variety, snipped>

> > Christian doctrine evolved over time - this has always been my
> > contention. I do not believe that the Church today is the same as the
> > one which existed 2000 years ago. The problem is that Orthodoxy makes
> > such a claim. So how do you handle the fact that in the earliest
> > Scriptures - Paul's Epistles and the Gospel of Mark, there is not
> > mention of the virgin birth?

> +++
> Answer my question why you believe in the Nicene Creed, which professes
> belief in the Virgin Mary.
> +++

Because I believe Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah.

> > Consequently this meal is not sacrifice, but a thanksgiving, which is
> > why it
> > was called a Eucharist. In Orthodoxy this thanksgiving, this
> > demonstration
> > of the life of the church, has changed into something quite different.

> +++
> I answered this question to a satisfactory extent for sober, honest minds.
> +++

Where? Saying that you gave an answer is not an answer.

> > It is also significant that the Didach Eucharist is a REAL MEAL, not
> > some sort
> > of little bite of bread and spoon of wine. This meal was not
> > originally a "magic" ritual, but was a meal of communion of those in
> > the church, and people could eat their fill.
>
> +++
> Where does it say it was a real meal? It says nothing about what you
> are filled with. The context indicates you are filled with spiritual
> food and drink, from the communion elements. It talks only about wine
> and bread, and nothing more. I don't know what a meal is in your
> household, but in mine we have meat and vegetables with our meals. It
> also says you must be baptised and have to fast beforehand, and repent,
> which are Orthodox practices, not Baptist.

Once again, you cannot see past your idol - the Orthodox Church.

If you ever take a look at history, you might want to check out Paul's
tradition of the instituion of the Eucharist by Jesus. The supper
takes
place between the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup -
so in
early traditions the Eucharist was not separate from the communal
meal.

That is the reason that Paul complained about the abuses of the
Eucharist. Paul's concerns contributed to the separation of the meal
from the Eucharist, and eventually the elimination of the meal
completely. The last step in this historical evolution was the
transformation of the Eucharist into a mystery-religion rite
officiated over by a priest. None of this is found in the Didache
account.

But in your simple Orthodox view: the Didache doesn't prohibit it, so
therefore it allows it, and therefore it is required!

> This further illustrates you reading something that ain't there.
> +++

Really?

> +++
> You obviously don't see anything that would upset your preconceived
> Baptist innovations. You'd rather turn the blinkers on than try to
> learn something for a change. The Didache, your standard bearer for
> early Christian thought, says converts are to repent and fast before
> their baptisms. So answer the question you dodged: How many days do
> Baptists fast before their baptisms?
> +++

Once again ,perhaps some Baptists do fast, but they follow Christ's
instructions and do not make a public event of it. How many Orthodox
fast? I mean really fast, not just abstain, for truly fast?

> > So a Bishop of the Church which used the Didache would recognize your
> > Bishop? I doubt it.

> +++
> More of your magical mind-reading of dead people.
> +++

Not at all. If you look at the beliefs of those who used the Didache,
this is a safe conclusion.

> > The Didache stands as a witness against the claim that Orthodoxy can
> > trace itself back to early Christianity. I have already shown that in

> +++
> No, it doesn't, and you've failed to demonstrate otherwise. In fact,
> you've misread and misinterpreted every section that you've offered as
> such a witness.
> +++

Yes it does. The Didache's silence concerning the "real presence",
icons, and prayers to the Saint is absolutely deafening. Why aren't
these crucial parts of Orthodoxy mentioned by the first century
Church?

Answer : They did not exist at the time!

> +++
> The word "priest" is a shortening of the word "presbyter." You
> dishonestly snipped my responses to this repeated harangue of yours. I
> will cut-n-paste it again. You can run from the truth, but you can't hide:

Nothing to hide from. There was no Priest [in terms of authority and
of performing the rituals of modern Orthodoxy] in the Didache. The
Church of the Didache had very different beliefs and practices,
compared to your Church. The name could be the same, yet their roles,
and beliefs, were very different.

> I don't know why you would subscribe to the most mind-bending theory,
> that Christ's Apostles initiated one form of Church governance, then
> suddenly here come the bad 'ol Orthodox Catholics who wipe it out and
> institute an "incorrect tradition." Why would Christ allow the early
> Church to be set up in one form and the later Church in another?
> +++

"Strawman" argument. I have said consistently that all Churches are
the product of historical evolution. Also, following your logic : why
would Christ allow His Church [if we assume that your Church is the
one] to fall into heresy so many times?

> > Huh? So being the husband of one wife *really* means being the
> > husband of no wife?
>
> +++
> Again, you refuse to paste the supposed passage that mandates a bishop
> to be married. As I wrote earlier, please continue on with this line of
> illogical interpretation. It further undermines your credibility.
> +++

And you refuse to paste the supposed passages that mandates a Bishop
be unmarried.

> > Really? There were married Bishops in the early Church - according to
> > the
> > Bible and Didache. There were also female Deacons, by the way. Who
> > gave your Church the right to change Paul's words?
>
> +++
> You're being dishonest again. Provide the words that were changed.
> You're refusal to do so speaks volumes about your credibility.
> +++

Oh OK, my mistake. Being the husband of one wife ****really**** means
being the husband of no wife. That makes sense!

> > However, times have changed. The threat of a father passing the
> > Bishop's office to his son is unimaginable in today's Church. The
> > Church should return to the Biblical [and first century Church] model
> > of married Bishops.

> +++
> There was never a model of mandated marriages. Besides, who cares what
> you think we should do.
> +++

Nor was there a model of mandated celibacy, so why did your Church
invent it? Perhaps for economic reasons?

> > Once again, why does your Church ban married men from this office?

> +++
> It's a discipline, something Baptists are to lazy to appreciate or
> understand.
> +++

And you are too lazy to explain. A ban is a ban, whatever you want to
call it.

> > There is a huge difference between the requirement that a Bishop must
> > be the husband of one wife [as Paul taught] and the requirement that a
> > Bishop must be the husband of no wife [as the Orthodox Church
> > teaches].

> +++
> You're being dishonest again. Provide the words that mandated a bishop
> to be married. You're refusal to do so speaks volumes about your
> credibility.
> +++

Your Church mandates that a Bishop must be unmarried, show me the
passage that mandates this before you question anyone's credibility!

> > Not at all, it is an illustration of the fallacy of your beliefs. Is
> > the Orthodox Church today the same, at least in doctrin and teachings,
> > as the first Century Church? The answer is no.

> +++
> You're being dishonest again. You're inability to substantiate your
> claims speaks volumes about your credibility.
> +++

No you are. The issue of icons is but one such example.

> > Once again, this does not answer the question: why do you assume that
> > the Church mentioned in the Bible is the same as your Church? Other
> > Churches make the same claim, so why is yours any better than theirs?
>
> +++
> Because ours has been around since the 1st century. The Churches you
> read about in the Bible - Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Antioch,
> Jerusalem, etc - still exist today and they are in the Orthodox Church.
> This is much better than your ahistorical cult, Unlearned One.
> +++

Really? And these Churches are the same as what exists today? For
example, your Church in Corinth submitted to the ecclesiastical of
Pope Clement of
Rome (90-99) and there is no record of the Apostle John intervening in
spite of the fact that Ephesus was closer to Corith than Rome.

Your Corinthian Church accepted Rome's message and legates gladly, and
the Pope's letter was placed almost on a level with the Sacred
Scriptures for nearly a century (Clement, Ad. Cor., i., 1, 2, 44).

> > Once again, you dodge the question. Why do you assume that your
> > Church is the one that Christ is talking about?

> +++

> Because ours has been around since the 1st century. The Churches you
> read about in the Bible - Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Antioch,
> Jerusalem, etc - still exist today and they are in the Orthodox Church.
> This is much better than your ahistorical cult, Unlearned One.

The Church of the first century was very different than your Church,
which evolved out of the politics of Byzantium.

> You're the one who is dodging this passage, while continuing to snip it
> in the vain hope it will disappear. I will post it again:

I have answered it before.

> Christ orders you to listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he
> refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to
> hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

Prove that this is your Church. Besides, I thought that the Orthodox
Church was born on Pentecost, so Jesus is obviously not talking about
your Church.

> You ignore Scripture, you disobey the Lord.

As do you.

> Your religious club is a fraud of dangerous proportions,

As is yours.

> deceiving people that their salvation is
> gained once and for all by a simple twenty second prayer, and that their
> children shouldn't be baptised, in direct contradiction to the Lord's
> demand that infants be brought to Him.
> +++

And your Church teaches that we can somehow, but we are not sure how,
earn our salvation.

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:
> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<9Jh7d.76062$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
> The original issue was:
>
>
>>>>3b) The Church didn't exist when the Bible was wrote.
>>>
>>>Are they really the same Chruches in terms of belief and doctrine?
>
>
>
>>In a sense, yes. The doctrines that were codified at a later date were
>>merely a fleshing out of beliefs held by early Christians and in
>>Scripture because disputes arouse about the implications of various
>>teachings of the Church. These fleshed out doctrines do not contradict
>>these earlier teachings, which can't be said about Protestant doctrines.
>
>
> Really? Then did the first Century Christians make/venerate icons?

+++
God made the first icon in Christ. We have unwritten traditions that
St. Luke was the first iconographer, making the first icons of the
Virgin Mary on the table used for the last supper. As far as whether a
thriving icon industry suddenly sprang to life in the 1st century,
you've been told "no" already. It took time to understand and elucidate
the nature of the Incarnation.

Your harangue about whether 1st century Christians venerated icons
completely misses the point. The veneration of icons isn't
contradictory to 1st century theology. It's a further elucidation of
the Incarnation of our Lord. In addition, it's not at all inconceivable
that images were used to help the illiterate masses understand the
Faith, (especially when there was no NT canon until the 4th century!).

You've got a major issue which you've run away from like the plague, and
that is the NT canon. Where in the 1st century church did anyone write
about there being 27 books in the NT, the canon given to you by the
Orthodox Catholic Church? Your whole Baptist project is founded on one
super book, made up of 27 sub-books, which didn't exist for four
centuries. It is impossible that anyone in the 1st century Church could
have believed in sola scriptura when there was no NT canon.
+++

>>>Well, if these Churches were "the pillar and foundation of the truth"
>>>then why did Paul have to write so many letters correcting their false
>>>beliefs and practices? Where was the "true Church"? Was it in
>>>Galacia or in Corinth?
>
>
>
>>You again confuse a few sinful individuals with the Church as a whole.
>>The true Church was in the entire organization that was constituted by
>>Corinth and the other Churches.
>
>
> OK, so when the Church does something wrong, then it is the fault of
> 'individuals'? This is the logical fallacy of "unattainable
> perfection".

+++
Oh, boy, here we go with your "unattainable perfection" harangues. I
wish you'd "learn" a few new tricks and come up with new harangues.

You'll accuse the "Church" of wrongdoing, while in the same post you'll
deny the "Church" exists because a guy over there embraces a Gnostic
heresy. You're unable to put forth a consistent harangue about the OC.
+++

> Your argument is similar to the arguments made by Muslims on campus:
> Islam is the perfect system. However, when anyone points to the
> Islamic Republics of Pakistan or Iran to illustrate that Islam is not
> perfect, the Muslims respond: if it is flawed, it is not "true Islam".

+++
How long have you been on this "campus", by the way? When I was in
college, my thinking and writing matured over a four year time span.
But I don't see any change in the nature or content of your posts. I
see the same slapped-down nonsense over and over again, without any sign
that you've matured into a thoughtful reader. Are you holding out the
vain hope that a set of canned Baptist talking points will lead an
Orthodox Christian to lay down his reason, common sense, and more
importantly, a healthy holistic approach to Scripture? Is that what
they teach you at Brother Bob's Fly-by-Night Church?
+++

>>You're committing the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Your reasoning
>>is proven wrong by counter-examples...
>>
>>?Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Assembly of God can't be
>>Christ's Church.?
>>?Baptists sold slaves. An institution that buys and sells humans,
>>foments racism against blacks, and lynches minorities can't be Christ's
>>Church. I certainly can?t follow such a person?s teachings on sola
>>scriptura.?
>
>
> Uh, no. Bakker and the Baptists never claimed that their
> organizations were the one and only "true Church" .

+++
Have you read the Nicene Creed? What do you think this means?

"We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."
+++

>>The truth is that many despicable people believe and trust in the Holy
>>Spirit, the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ but it doesn?t have any
>>relevance on the merits of those doctrines. If you want perfect people
>>to illustrate Christ?s doctrines, then you?re in for a major
>>disappointment. Your tactic is one of ?tar and smear? individuals for
>>being fallen slobs, while in turn you have little to nothing to offer in
>>refutation of the doctrines in question. Scripture tells us that tares
>>will be found among the wheat, and that His Church would endure
>>tribulations. But of course, these passages mean nothing for a cherry
>>pickin? Protestant who can?t make sense of the entirety of Scripture
>>without ignoring half of it at the instruction of Brother Billy Bob, who
>>of course leads a sinless life.
>
>
> But this is impossible in Orthodoxy since: "Orthodoxy believes and
> proclaims that the complete and integral faith delivered to the saints
> by Jesus Christ has been preserved without alteration or diminution
> only within the communion of the Orthodox Church." And: Orthodoxy
> believes that the eternal truth of God's revelation in Jesus Christ is
> preserved in its full integrity in the living tradition of the Church,
> under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

+++

The apostolic doctrines, beliefs, and practices remain intact in the

Orthodox Church today and you've not demonstrated otherwise. All
Orthodox credal formulas, liturgical texts, and doctrinal statements
affirm the original apostolic faith, which was also expressed in the
apostolic traditions of the first centuries. There were indeed other
beliefs and practices, which were not apostolic, and constituted a
diverse body of wrong doctrines, as so stated Paul and the other Apostles.
+++

>>>Once again, the Churches that Paul wrote to are very different than

>>>what the Orthodox Church is, and believes, today.
>
>
>
>>You haven't provided any information that demonstrates how those
>>Churches believed anything that contradicts Orthodox doctrines today.
>
>
> From the earliest records [the Didache], the early Christians made no
> mention of the bread and wine becoming the "real presence" of the body
> and blood of Jesus, and the Church of the Didache had Communion as a
> meal in which
> believers were "filled".
>
> According to the Didache - which prescribed worship, there was no
> mention of the veneration of Mary or the saints and no icons.
>
> Next unanswered question:

+++
Ah, here we go with another of your wild tactics - you snip my responses
to your harangues and then whine that your "question" wasn't answered.
Please continue on. You undermine your credibility.

The Didache isn't an all-comprehensive document of the Church's
practices and beliefs, nor does it claim to be such. Furthermore, it
says nothing that contradicts Orthodox teaching. It's an edifying

document, though not all-inclusive. It doesn't prohibit infant baptism

(as modern-day Baptists do) nor does it prohibit those other items you

enumerated. In the Didache, there is no Trinity, no divinity of Christ,

no crucifixion, no resurrection, no sola scriptura, and most certainly

no “once saved/always saved” theology. Which one of those items are you

ready to dump because of your loyalty to the authority of the Didache?
You want to hold this document up as a complete laundry list of early
Christian doctrines against the Orthodox camp, while in turn excusing
yourself from the same standard. Nice.

The Didache’s description of the Eucharist with various symbols isn’t

incompatible with Orthodox theology, which states that the elements are
real AND symbolic. There can be many ways of describing the bread and
wine in metaphorical language though the objects in question are the
real blood and body of Christ; much like poetry uses metaphorical
language to express the mysteries of real objects like trees and stars.

Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that
Baptists have dismissed. Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in

addition to references to the Church, unbroken continuous visible forms

of the Church which you've dismissed as nonsensical. The entire Didache

is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
Christianity which exists only in their minds. As Newman once said, the

farther back in history a Christian studies, the lesser he remains a
Protestant.
+++

>>>>4) A few bad people (or people teaching errors) in an organization
>>>>invalidate the legitimacy of the organization and its doctrines.
>
>
>>>Jim Baker was a member of the Assemblies of God. Second, Jim Baker
>>
>>Ok, how about this... "Jim Bakker is a bad guy; therefore the Assembly
>>of God can't be Christ's Church."
>
>
> It probably isn't.

+++
Because Learner sez so? Explain, please. By what authority do you
judge another's church to not be a true church? This is why the
relativistic, it's-all-the-same, celebrate-diversity approach doesn't
work; those that promote it actually don't follow it.
+++

>>It's the same fallacious reasoning you are employing.
>
>
> Not at all, I don't believe that there is, or ever was, a one "true
> Church."

+++
The Nicene Creed, which you said you support, says, "We believe in One
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." So you again contradict yourself
in denying the words of the Nicene Creed. You also again make the
Scriptures a collection of lies when they tells us the Church is the
pillar of Truth.

Christ orders you to listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he
refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to
hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

You can't make any sense out this statement if you truly believe any
and all beliefs are OK.

You ignore Scripture, and you ignore the commands of your Lord. You
might deny the sun shining on your head today is the same as that which
shined on Socrates, but such recourse to sophistry does nothing to help
your credibility.
+++

>>>was a profiteer who never claimed to be the true Church. Jim Baker
>>
>>Untrue. He and all Protestants claim to belong to the true Church, they
>>just describe it as an invisible body, which runs counter the the
>>Bible's description of it.
>
>
> Really? Then which Church deserves to be called the "Bride of
> Christ"? Certainly not yours!

+++

The apostolic doctrines, beliefs, and practices remain intact in the

Orthodox Church today and you've not demonstrated otherwise. All
Orthodox credal formulas, liturgical texts, and doctrinal statements
affirm the original apostolic faith, which was also expressed in the
apostolic traditions of the first centuries. There were indeed other
beliefs and practices, which were not apostolic, and constituted a
diverse body of wrong doctrines, as so stated Paul and the other Apostles.
+++

> Also, is the Orthodoxy consistent on this issue [or any other, for

> that matter]?
>
> For example, Theophylact Gorskii calls the Church "the assembly of
> true believers and saints, rightly called together by the preaching of
> the divine word to attain eternal life through the great goodness of
> God. Only those really belong to the Church who possess the true
> faith, by which they are united with Christ the Head. Hence they are
> called members of the Body of Christ, so that the wicked, the
> unbelieving and hypocrites are certainly excluded from membership."
>
> This is much closer to the idea of the "invisible Church" than to the
> idea of the Church being a visible, hierarchical institution. It is
> common that when one asks two Orthodox a question, that they receive
> three answers!

+++
The Church is both visible and invisible, Learner. You've been
corrected on this many times.
+++

>>>did not have the economic and military support of the U.S. government
>>>to enforce his edicts - as the Orthodox Churches of Byzantium and
>>>Russia had. In fact, the modern Russian Orthodox Church owns a slice
>>>of the oil monopoly and once controlled the cigarette monopoly. The
>>>Russian government defends and supports the Russian Orthodox Church's
>>>corruption, the American government threw Jim Baker in jail. Bad
>>>analogy!
>>
>>You again throw our irrelevant side information... it's called poisoning
>>the well. Baptists once controlled the cotton trade in the South
>>through save labor.
>
>
> Individuals, or the Church and its leaders?

+++
Individuals, the Baptist churches, and its leaders.
+++

>>>Yes, there were Baptists who sold slaves. As did Catholics,
>>>Anglicans, Methodists, and [since there was a Greek community in New
>>>Orleans] possibly even an Orthodox Catholic, or two.
>
>
>
>>>However, did the Baptist Church [or any other Church], as an
>>>institution, own slaves and oppose their emanicipation? The Southern
>
>
>
>>Yes, they did. Southern Baptist ministers routinely used Scripture,
>>your infallible source for Truth, to justify their owning of slaves.
>>How can you believe in an infallible book when that book was used to
>>justify slavery?
>
>
> But, the question is: did the Baptist Church own slaves as the
> Orthodox Church owned Serfs?

+++
Here you go again with your fallacious BS. You hold up Bad Individual X
who is a member of the visible Orthodox Church, and say X equals the
Orthodox Church. But then later when it suits a different harangue of
yours, you'll say the existence of X means the Orthodox Church doesn't
exist. Then you change gears again and say Bad Individual Y who is a
member of the Baptist church is an isolated incident. You argue from
convenience, and spin out fallacious poison-the-well tactics while
refusing to make any mention of the orphanages, hospitals, soup
kitchens, and other humanitarian endeavors that have always been
provided by the ROC.

Another note... you don't have your terminology correct, which shows a
tendency on your part to associate the OC with loaded words with
negative connotations. The word "serf" applied to those individuals
owned by the boyars, who had total control over their lives to do as
they wished. They could buy, sell, trade, and mortgage them. The
peasants on state land, which would include that of the ROC, were not
serfs. They were paid peasants and in return paid taxes to the state.
Yes, they were tied to the land and forbidden to move where they wanted,
but so were middle-class tradesmen and craftsmen. This was the law of
czarist Russia, and had nothing to do with Orthodox doctrines or canon
law, which you fallaciously imply. Next time, get your facts straight.

Here's an article describing the ROC's stand against anti-semitism
during its history:

http://www.newtimes.ru/eng/detail.asp?art_id=778
ASK PEACE FOR JERUSALEM
By Valery Kadzhaya, August 2004

Even during the period of the most rampant anti-Semitism in Russia, the
most honest and authoritative dignitaries of the Russian Orthodox Church
came out against it.

It so happened that during the past month I came across several
manifestations of anti-Semitism both within the Russian Orthodox Church
and among writers and philosophers claiming to be its spiritual
offspring. While reading the newspaper Radonezh, the magazine Russky Dom
(Russian House), as well as books and articles by deacon A. Kurayev, one
may draw the conclusion that anti-Semitism is inherent in Russian
orthodoxy. But when reading the book Babylon and Jerusalem just
published in Moscow one realizes that this is not so, and has never been
so even at the time of the Black Hundreds in Russia. Moreover, when
anti-Semitism was especially rabid, the most honest and authoritative
dignitaries of the Russian Orthodox Church and outstanding religious
thinkers and writers emphasized the spiritual roots and spiritual
affinity of Judaism and Christianity.

In the beginning of the 20th century, Archbishop Nikolai (his lay name
was Mikhail Ziorov, 1851–1915), an outstanding preacher and religious
and public figure, addressed the following words to the Jews: “The
Jewish people are close to us in faith. Your Law is our Law, your
prophets are our prophets. The Ten Commandments of Moses are binding on
the Christians and Jews alike. We wish always to live in peace and
harmony with you so that misunderstanding, enmity and hatred will never
be present amongst us.”

These words of a pre–revolutionary church dignitary were quoted by
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II in his famous speech in New
York at a meeting with rabbis on November 13, 1991. His speech
determined the general trend of the mutual relations of the two peoples
and two religions. The Patriarch said, among other things: “Judaism and
Christianity are united by a spiritual and natural affinity and positive
religious interests. We are united with the Judaists without renouncing
Christianity. For this is not contrary to Christianity, but in the name
and for the sake of Christianity. And the Judaists are united with us
also in the name and for the sake of genuine Judaism.

“We are separate from the Judaists because we are ‘not wholly
Christian’, and the Judaists are separate from us because they are ‘not
wholly Judaic’. Because full Christianity embraces Judaism and full
Judaism is Christianity…

“The hierarchs, clergy and theologians of our Church resolutely and
openly denounce all and sundry manifestations of anti-Semitism and
enmity and pogroms against the Jews.

“During the notorious Beilis trial, Archpriest Alexander Glagolev, a
professor at the Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy, and Ivan Troitsky, a
professor at the St.Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy, firmly defended
Beilis and resolutely rejected the accusations of ritual killings
allegedly practised by Jews. The Metropolitan of St.Petersburg, Antony
(Valdkovsky), did much to protect the Jews from the anti-Semitic attacks
of the extreme right-wing radical organizations. There were also many
other hierarchs and theologians of our Church who courageously defended
the Jews from the enmity and slanderous accusations made by the
anti-Semitic circles: Metropolitan Makari (Bulgakov), the Bishop of
Grodno Donat (Babinsky), Bishop Vissarion (Nechayev), Archbishop
Serapion (Meshcheryakov), Archbishop Makari (Mirolyubov)…

“We should also mention that many of our theologians and outstanding
religious thinkers, such as Vladimir Solovyov, Nikolai Berdiayev, and
Father Sergiy Bulgakov, stood up for the Jews. Vladimir Solovyov
regarded the defence of the Jews, from the Christian point of view, to
be one of the major tasks of his life. For him the main question was not
whether the Jews were good or bad, but whether we Christians were good
or bad. Much had been done for establishing a Christian dialogue by our
famous religious thinkers of Jewish origin, Semyon Frank and Lev Shestov.

“In this difficult but sacred cause for all of us we hope for
understanding and help from our Jewish brothers and sisters. We shall
build, by our joint efforts, a new society – one that is democratic,
free, open and just. It will be a society which no one will want to
leave, and in which the Jews can live confidently and calmly, in an
atmosphere of friendship, creative cooperation and fraternity between
the children of our common God -- the Father of all, the God of your and
our fathers…”

When speaking about the brotherly attitude to the Jews of the best part
of the orthodox clergy and outstanding Russian orthodox thinkers, the
Patriarch also noted the great contribution to the cause of mutual
understanding and “friendly dialogue” with the Russian Orthodox Church
made by public and spiritual leaders of Jewish communities in Russia and
mentioned such names as the Judaist theologian Yitzkhak Ber Levinson,
rabbies Shmuil Alexandrov and Leib Yehuda Don-Yahia, and Professor
Mikhail Agursky… It was not accidental, the Patriarch emphasized, that
“the lawyer defending the Metropolitan Veniamin of St.Petersburg when he
was on trial in 1922 was a Jew, Gurevich, who did everything he could to
win the case…”

I have quoted this remarkable speech at such great length because it is
rather difficult for an ordinary person to get acquainted with it
thoroughly and because there have been many stories made up about it by
our new Black Hundreds. Now this speech can be found in a well-published
book, and one can draw one’s own conclusions after reading it.

The book Babylon and Jerusalem also includes big excerpts from works on
the Russian-Jewish dialogue by such outstanding thinkers as Vladimir
Solovyov, Vyacheslav Ivanov, Nikolai Berdiayev, Sergei Bulgakov, and
others. These works are now available to everyone (some fifteen years
ago they were still banned). But even a person with a higher education
will find it difficult to read and understand everything, if he or she
is not a specialist on the subject. Yet, the material collected in this
book is a real discovery.

Patriarch Alexy II ended that memorable speech in New York on a very
noble note: “The iconostasis of our Russian cathedral in Jerusalem bears
the words of a sexton: ‘Ask peace for Jerusalem’. This is what we all
now need –- both your and our people, and all other peoples, because our
God is one and the same for all His children”.

These words ring truly prophetic in our days, for there is no peace in
Jerusalem today, nor is there one in Russia.
+++

> And there were also abolitionist who counter using Scripture. How
> many Orthodox stood against the persecution of the Old Believers? How
> many Bishops condemned the centuries of anti-Semitism and pogroms
> against the Jews of Russia?

+++
Many than your unlearned eyes and mind will ever try to understand and
accept. Read my comments above.
+++

>>>Baptists have worked hard for racial reconciliation - admitting the
>>>sins of the past leaders.
>
>
>
>>The same is true for Orthodox. Many bishops were denouncing the pogroms
>>and other injustices under the czarist regime. You're being selective
>>in cherry pickin' behaviors to illustrate a fallacious line of reasoning.
>
>
> Really? When has the Orthodox Church ever apologized for its past
> crimes?

+++
Read my comments above, O' Unlearned One.
+++

>>>The sad fact is that the Russian Orthodox Church owned land and Serfs.
>>> Is this something that the "pillar and foundation of the truth"
>>>should do? The Russian Orthodox Church systematically persecuted the
>>>Old Believers. Is this the work of Christ's Church? The Russian
>>>Orthodox Church, for many decades, fomented pogroms and violence
>>>against the Jews of Russia. Is this something that the "pillar and
>>>foundation of the truth" should do?
>>
>>In 1792 the Strawberry Baptist Association of Virginia urged the Baptist
>>General Committee not to interfere with slavery since many of its
>>members and pastors owned slaves. In South Carolina, for example,
>>one-third of members and two-fifths of pastors owned slaves. Some
>>areas, like Philadelphia, opposed the emancipation of slaves because of
>>the impact that it would have on trade in their areas. This is a
>>demonstration of Baptists, as an institution, propagating and defending
>>slavery. Not only that, many of these Baptist slave owners were forcing
>>their slaves to baptise their infants, a practice that Baptist were
>>supposed to be against.
>
>
> A silly "pot-n-kettlisms", to say the least! You are comparing
> apples to oranges : a few people at a point in time, with an
> institution that has, for centuries, exploited Serfs and persecuted
> others whose beliefs were different.

+++
Here you go again with your fallacious BS. You hold up Bad Individual
X, and say X equals the Orthodox Church. But then later when it suits a
different harangue of yours, you'll say the existence of X means the
Orthodox Church doesn't exist. Then when a Bad Individual Z comes along
from the Baptist Church, he doesn't equal the Baptist Church.

Read my comments above.
+++

>>Enough of your pot-n-kettlisms.
>
>
> OK.....
>
>
>>>In fact, to moderns times, the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia sells
>>>books containing excerpts of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
>>>(Source:http://www.beliefnet.com/story/97/story_9754_1.html)
>
>
>
>>The link talks about a book called "He is at the Door" by Sergei Nilus
>>being sold in bookstores in Yekaterinburg. It has nothing to do with
>>the Protocols.
>
>
> Once again, you are so eager to provide an answer - any answer - that
> your reading comprehension suffers. I did not say they were selling
> the "Protocols", I said, as did the article, that they are selling a
> book "containing excerpts of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion.""

+++
And again, I haven't seen this book and Beliefnet didn't provide any
excerpts. They have a tendency to run articles like this against
Christian traditionalists, implying they are anti-semitic.

The entire point you're trying to make is that the existence of a few
bad people invalidates the doctrines of the Orthodox Church, while you
don't hold the same standards to your Baptist brethren. Let's start
looking at anti-semitic and gay-hating Baptist churches.

http://www.adl.org/presrele/ASUS_12/3679_12.asp
ADL Report says Homophobic "Church" Espouses Anti-Semitism and Racism

"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued a report on the Rev. Fred
Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, a group whose public crusades
against homosexuality have included hate pickets across the country. The
ADL report says that Phelps also espouses anti-Semitism and racism, a
fact that is largely obscured by the church’s highly charged attacks
against homosexuals.

Fred Phelps has made patently clear his mission of targeting gays with
hateful rhetoric and public demonstrations," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL
National Director. "What is less widely known about Fred Phelps is that
he and followers of the Westboro Baptist Church have also attacked Jews,
Blacks and Christians. He and his church continue to spread vile
rhetoric against many groups."

THE FRUIT OF GENTILE CHRISTIANITY: ANTI-SEMITISM #1
http://www.returningtofaithofyeshua.freeservers.com/cx_legacy_antisemno1.htm

"In growing up in the Baptist Church as a child and young person I often
heard things like this:
* Israel is not reborn and they are without salvation!
* The Jews rejected Jesus and should be punished.
* The Jews are the Christ killers, well poisoners, plague carriers,
host defamers, and sons of the devil!
* The Old Covenant is Dead and replaced by the New Covenant!
* The Jews are our misfortune and have not blessed the nations of
the earth!"

And don't tell me, Learner, that the above quotes are not spouted in
Baptist churches. I grew up in the Bible Belt and attended plenty of
Baptist churches and sermons in my life. I've heard plenty of Jew- and
Catholic-baiting and and it's not a surprise that the same fallacious
rants have rubbed off on you in your Orthodox-baiting posts.
+++

>>>I am not talking about the sins or shortcomings of individuals being
>>>imputed to a larger organization. I am talking about an institution
>>>that is, and has been, rotten to its core for centuries.
>>
>>That's exactly what you are doing, and it's not honest discussion on
>>your part.
>
>
> No, I am not talking about a few bad people. I am talking about the
> Russian Orthodox Church - an organization that has systematically
> exploited people for centuries.

+++
I'm talking about the Baptist Church, an organization that
systematically bought and sold human beings as if they were horses,
fomented racism, preached hatred against minorities and Jews and
Catholics, and used the Bible to justify its actions.
+++

[FTT]

"Al" <aggr...@SPAMechoes.net> wrote in message

news:cju5o...@enews3.newsguy.com...

Well Al, you opened the question.
FTT

[Al]

***Baptist? Is that what "Learner" is...a Baptist? No wonder he writes weird
stuff.

Al

"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:oCA8d.58616$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

[Al]

"FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:J2C8d.9795$HO1.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...

***No, I did not. The so-called Baptist Learner asked the question.

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<X3m7d.77819$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
> The originial issue was:
>
>
>>>>5) The Didache is an all-inclusive document on early Church doctrine.
>>>>Because this document says nothing about the real presence, infant
>>>>baptism, unmarried bishops, etc., therefore those teachings are false,
>>>>or at least were not believed by the earliest Christians.
>
>
> False. I never said that it was an "all-inclusive document". So, now
> you proceed to answer issues that were not raised.

+++
That's the hidden premise in your argumentation that you would slip in.
Do they call you Tricky Dicky in college, I wonder? If you now agree
that the Didache isn't a comprehensive document regarding 1st century
doctrines and practices, then why do you rant about missing doctrines
and practices? Again, your incoherency.
+++

>>That's the hidden premise in your argumentation. You argue Orthodox
>>practice XYZ isn't in the Didache, therefore this practice wasn't held
>>by early Christians. It's your task to prove the Didache provides a
>>comprehensive list of early Christian practices.
>
>
> I am not talking about minor issues here. The fact that the Didache
> makes no mention of the "real presence", icons, or the veneration of
> Saints is very significant and shows how far modern Orthodoxy has
> wandered from early Christianity.

+++
Uh... ok. Icons are a major issue, but sola scriptura, once
saved/always saved theology, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the
Crucifixion, the Resurrection are trivial ones?
+++

>>>According to the Didache, Bishops were married men elected by the
>>>congregation.
>
>
>
>>Yes, our bishops are elected. But the Didache doesn't say bishops were
>>married, nor does it say how they were elected. Quotes, please.
>
>
> They are elected by whom, the people?
>
> 15:1 Elect, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of
> the Lord, men who are meek and not covetous, and true and approved,
> for they perform for you the service of prophets and teachers.

+++
This chapter doesn't say anything about how they were elected or who
elected them.
+++

>>>According to the Didache - which prescribed worship, there was no
>>>mention of the veneration of Mary or the saints and no icons.
>
>
>>Where does the Didache say it prescribed worship??? What happened to
>>your earlier claim that there were differing beliefs and practices in
>>the early Church? Is so, they why do you old this singular document up
>>with such importance?
>
>
> Read it! Notice phrases such as : 10:1 "But after it has been
> completed, so pray ye." and 6:1 "See that no one make thee to err
> from this path of doctrine, since he who doeth so teacheth thee apart
> from God."

+++
And answer the questions! What happened to your earlier claim that

there were differing beliefs and practices in the early Church? Is so,

then why do you hold this singular document up with such importance?

You've been corrected on this countless times before. Orthodox doctrine
does not contradict the Didache.
+++

>>This proves what I wrote above, that you grant this work a status of
>>comprehensiveness that is unwarranted. The Didache says nothing that
>>contradicts Orthodox practice and doctrine. It doesn't say Christians
>>didn't venerate Mary or the saints or icons. It doesn't prohibit such
>>practices. You also <sigh> again, look for a lack of Orthodox practices
>>while failing to notice the absence of your own.
>
>
> So, whatever the Didache doesn't say is therefore permitted? The
> Didache doesn't say that people didn't pray to Shiva, or that dogs and
> cats were forbidden baptism. You are building your faith [or really
> defending your idol - the Church] based on the argument from silence.

+++
You obviously don't know your fallacies, by your incorrect reference to
argument from silence. That's not at all surprising, coming from you.

Read from Wikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

"The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics
against the virgin birth of Christ. St Paul, for example, does not
mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence
that he did not know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted
proof of Paul's ignorance, it is a logical fallacy, because ignorance is
only one possible reason for Paul's silence: it's also possible that he
did not think the virgin birth was important or relevant to his
reasoning, or that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost or
mutilated. However, the argument from silence is not fallacious if it is
used to prove that Paul may have been ignorant. From the fact that Paul
refers to the resurrection, it is certain that he knew of it; from the
fact that Paul does not refer to the virgin birth, it is not certain
that he knew of it, therefore he may have been ignorant of it."

LEARNER... THIS IS THE EXACT SAME FALLACY ABOUT THE VIRGIN BIRTH YOU'VE
USED IN SEVERAL POSTS!!! It's YOU, Mr. Troll, who are arguing ex
silentio because you mistakenly conclude that any Orthodox doctrine not
elaborated in the Didache didn't exist, while in turn you remain
nonresponsive about the missing Baptist doctrines in the Didache, and
the Baptist doctrines that contradict the Didache. Orthodox doctrines
are substantiated not because of silence, but through Scripture, the
Holy Tradition, Patristic writing, and 2000 years of consistent
doctrine. You can't claim any of this for your Baptist cult.

Christ told you to obey that "idol" called the Church:

Matthew 18:17 - "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church.
But if he refuses even to hear the Church, let him be to you like a
heathen and a tax collector."

You ignore Scripture, and you disobey the Lord. Your religious club is
a fraud of dangerous proportions, deceiving people that their salvation

is gained once and for all by a simple twenty second prayer, and that
their children shouldn't be baptised, in direct contradiction to the
Lord's demand that infants be brought to Him.
+++

>>>Yes, it does prohibit infant baptism!

>
>
>
>>Where? Quote, please.
>
>
> See below.

+++
And I ask you again... where??? You pulled this childish stunt
before... "look down below"... and then nothing.
+++

>>>"But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and
>>>whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or
>>>two days before.."
>>
>>This prohibits infant baptism no more than it prohibits those who have
>>health problems like diabetes or elderly in weak health who can't fast.
>> Use some common sense fer cryin' out loud. The Church isn't a
>>heartless, legalistic body. Scripture tells us that entire households
>>were baptised at the same time. It didn't say babies were to excluded.
>
>
> It doesn't say that infants were baptized either! Since infant
> baptism is an important part of Orthodoxy, in fact those who oppose it
> are cursed, I find it odd that there is no mention of infant baptism
> in the Didache!

+++
There's no mention of baptising men, women, or old people, Learner. I
suppose you think those baptisms were prohibited as well? Again, you
commit the fallacy of argument ex siletio. See above.
+++

>>>How many infants would last 24-48 hours without food?
>
>
>
>>I take it you don't have any children. Any healthy infant can withstand
>>that period of time without food,
>
>
> So, how many responsible parents would intentionally starve their
> children for 24-48 hours? You twist all logic and reason to defend
> your idol - the Orthodox Church!

+++
I've already corrected you on this, Learner. They didn't fast their
infants because this rule was for adults. Think harder, Learner.
+++

>>though I don't believe that infants
>>were ever required to fast before baptism, just as today they are not
>>required to confess before communion even though canon law says Orthodox
>>are supposed to do such.
>
>
> On what basis do you "believe" this? On the preconceptions that your
> Church has imposed on you? On the plain and simple text of the

+++
I believe this based on the universal support of infant baptism in
Patristic writings, 2000 years of continuous practice, and Scripture's
continuous reference to entire households being baptised. In no
Patristic writing is infant baptism prohibited, nor can you point to any
documented evidence that this injuction was practiced before Anabaptists
came along and distorted Scripture.
+++

> Didache? Where does it say such a thing? Remember what the Didache
> does say: 6:1 "See that no one make thee to err from this path of
> doctrine, since he who doeth so teacheth thee apart from God."

+++
Orthodox doctrines do not contradict the Didache and you've not
demonstrated otherwise, which can't be said of Baptist doctrines.
Furthermore, the last time I checked the Didache wasn't in the Baptist
NT canon that they ungraciously borrowed from the Orthodox Church.
+++

>>By the way, my daughter didn't eat for almost two days after being born
>>because of swallowing problems. The doctors said it was just fine and
>>it happens all the time.
>
>
> But would you intentionally starve her for 24-48 hours? You argument
> reminds me of the Muslim defense of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old
> girl since, according to them, some girls have early menses!

+++
Another attempt at deflection from the fact that you can't find anything
in the Didache or Scripture prohibiting infant baptism.

I've already corrected you on this, Learner. They didn't fast their
infants because this rule was for adults. Think harder, Learner.
+++

>>What's most amusing is that you quote this part of the Didache and yet
>>you somehow ignore the fact that Baptists reject fasting altogether.
>>How many Baptists fast for 1-2 days before baptism?????
>
>
> I don't know. Perhaps when they fast, they follow Christ's words and
> do not make a public issue about it.

+++
You're trying to deflect. Is it, or is it not, printed in any of your
materials that a Baptist is to fast for 1-2 days before his/her baptism?
+++

>>>>In the Didache, there is no Trinity,
>
>
>
>>That's not the doctrine of the Trinity as illustrated in the Nicene
>>Creed. That just names three things without explaining the relationship.
>
>
> Which is also what Scripture does. Coining terms such as "Trinity"
> and making silly analogies [such as the old water-ice-steam analogy]
> undermines the teachings of the Bible by attempting to define an
> infinite God in finites terms and analogies.

+++
You wrote before that you understood that rejecting the Trinity is a
heresy. No you call it a silly analogy. Will the real beliefs of
Learner please stand up, rather than only those that suit the harangue
of the moment?
+++

>>>"Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God
>>>(Son) of David!"
>>
>>The translations don't indicate a clear divinity in Christ as we
>>understand it today. The Charles H. Hoole translation mentions:
>
>
> You might want to look at his translation of Didache 16:8.

+++
Note how you didn't post the quote. Well, here it is...
"16:8 then shall the world behold the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven"

This doesn't indicate a clear divinity as we understand it today. Is he
rain, a flock of birds, an angel, Santa Claus, a jumbo jet?
+++

>>"First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy
>>vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus
>>Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever."
>
>
> Uh, no... wrong verse. Hoole translates 10:6:
>
> "Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of
> David. If any one is holy let him come (to the Eucharist); if any one
> is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen."
>
> Going back to Hegesippus, as transmitted by Eusebius (H.E., II,
> xxiii), this refers to Christ's divinity.

+++
Going back to who??? You mean to tell me that you have to reference
external, extra-Didache material to make sense of it? How Orthodox of you.
+++

>>In addition, what this passage indicates is that Confession was required
>>to receive the Eucharist, another practice the Baptists have arbitrarily
>>dumped. Again it shows how closely the Orthodox Church has maintained
>>its practices from the very beginning.
>
>
> Nowhere does the Didache say that we must confess our sins to a
> Priest. In fact, the Didache doesn't even mention Priests!
> Interesting......

+++
Not interesting. More of your fallacious argument ex siletio.
+++

>>>The Didache affects my view of history because it shows what was, and
>>>what was not present in the early Church.
>
>
>
>>You're not being honest with yourself.
>
>
> Sure I am.

+++
My point proven.
+++

>>It doesn't show "once saved/always saved" - though you believe in it.
>
>
> Not all Protestants believe in it either, the Methodists for example.

+++
That's right. It's the private falsehood of Baptists, as I've pointed
out to you already.
+++

>>It doesn't show sola scriptura - though you believe to it.
>
>
> Sola Scriptura was an historical development - like forcing Bishops to

+++
A historical development in direct contradiction to 1500 years of
Orthodox Catholic practice and doctrine. You're unable to grasp this
important point.
+++

> be unmarried. Sola Scriptura was the result of the Church's numerous
> encrustations of legends, myths, and false practices on the initial
> message of Christ. The Bible provides the only information on the
> doctrines of early Christianity - which we cannot glean from what the
> Church now calls tradition.

+++
Wrong. The NT wasn't compiled into a canon until the 4th century at the
behest of that bad Byzantine government. The Bible itself is a
late-developing tradition, Learner. The Nicene Creed which you've
admitted is a heresy to reject, was written before any average believer
had a Bible to study at home all by himself without that idol you call
the Church. At a time when the world did not contain printing presses
and books were a luxury, few if any churches had an entire set of NT
Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. And yet, even without mass-produced books,
and without a standard NT text, the Church grew, survived, overcame,
thrived and continued faithfully for 400 years in unbroken, living
continuity. In other words, the focus of the Church was on Christ, the
author of our Faith, a Faith taught to them by Tradition and the
apostolic teachers within the Church, and “not” by a book about Him.
The Church was and is a living organism, not a group of rhetoricians who
know how to read "about" God in a list of cross-referenced,
concordance-aided verse references. And there’s not a single historical
reference that demonstrates this early Church practiced “once
saved/always saved” theology, a theology which didn’t appear until the
1500’s.
+++

>>It shows a hierarchy which is to
>>be respected, confession, a single Church to be gathered unto the ends
>>of the earth, fasting, and emphasizes the importance in the Eucharist -
>>all things you demean. I don't see anything there that resembles a
>>Nondenom church. In fact, this document played an important part in my
>>own conversion. I'd urge you to hand it out to all your Nondenom
>>friends and then explain why your practices are so different.
>
>
> Once again, historical development. Your Church doesn't have Prophets
> or Apostles as the early Church.

+++
Wrong. These are roles open for everyone, not administrative offices.
+++

>>>The Didache's view of the Eucharist is totally incompatible with
>>>Orthodox theology.
>
>
>
>>You're going to repeat the same talking points as if it wasn't already
>>addressed, and I'm going to cut-n-paste the same exposure of your
>>fallacious reasoning...
>
>
> I repeat it because your answer is flat-out wrong.
>
>
>>The Didache?s description of the Eucharist with various symbols isn?t
>>incompatible with Orthodox theology, which states that the elements are
>>real AND symbolic. There can be many ways of describing the bread and
>>wine in metaphorical language though the objects in question are the
>>real blood and body of Christ; much like poetry uses metaphorical
>>language to express the mysteries of real objects like trees and stars.
>
>
> In the Didache, there is no hint or mention of sacrifice and no
> partaking of the body and blood of Jesus. The later Orthodox liturgy
> presents the Eucharist as an "oblation," a sacrifice/offering, which
> clearly identifies the chalice and bread ans the body and blood of
> Jesus. In contrast, the Didache meal has none of this.

+++
First of all, there's no mention of a "meal" in the middle of the
Eucharist. Secondly, this is another repeat of the fallacious argument
ex siletio.

Read from Wikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

"The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics
against the virgin birth of Christ. St Paul, for example, does not
mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence
that he did not know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted
proof of Paul's ignorance, it is a logical fallacy, because ignorance is
only one possible reason for Paul's silence: it's also possible that he
did not think the virgin birth was important or relevant to his
reasoning, or that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost or
mutilated. However, the argument from silence is not fallacious if it is
used to prove that Paul may have been ignorant. From the fact that Paul
refers to the resurrection, it is certain that he knew of it; from the
fact that Paul does not refer to the virgin birth, it is not certain
that he knew of it, therefore he may have been ignorant of it."
+++

>>Chapter 8 of the Didache talks about how to fast, a practice that
>>Protestants have dismissed.
>
>
> How do you know what others do? Perhaps, unlike the Orthodox, they do
> fast but do not make a public spectacle about it.

+++
They wrote about it in the Didache to instruct believers to fast before
baptism. What's in your rule books for baptism? You're trying to evade.
+++

>>Chapter 15 mentions bishops and deacons, in
>>addition to references to the Church, unbroken continuous visible forms
>>of the Church which you've dismissed as nonsensical.
>
>
> And the early Church had Apostles and Prophets, so where are yours?

+++
These are roles open for everyone, not administrative offices. Nor are
these roles like Cub Scout badges so you can blow yourself up in pride.
+++

>>The entire Didache is consistent with Orthodox theology,
>
>
> Saying this over and over, doesn't make it so, Joe.

+++
You've not provided anything from the Didache that demonstrates Orthodox
theology is contradicting it.
+++

>>We don't lack those offices because they, along with saints, are not
>>offices in the sense of clergy. Furthermore, the Didache says:
>
>
>
>>"15:1 Elect, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the
>>Lord, men who are meek and not covetous, and true and approved, for they
>>perform for you the service of prophets and teachers."
>
>
> They may perform these services, but it does not say that these
> offices should be abolished.

+++
We abolished nothing. These are roles open for everyone, not
administrative offices, Learner. You're not paying attention. Nor are
these roles like Cub Scout badges so you can build yourself up in pride.
+++

>>This clearly says bishops and deacons perform the roles of prophets and
>>teachers. And we do elect our bishops. The Didache says nothing about
>>election by congregations.
>
>
> Then who elects the Bishop?

+++
The Synod. Do your homework.
+++

>>Prophets were not eliminated. The Didache says bishops are to perform
>>the role of prophets. Also, it doesn't say anything about who conducts
>>the Eucharist. Note the absence of women, children, lepers, space
>>aliens, TeleTubbies, and blue-eyed carpenters in the celebration of the
>>Eucharist.
>
>
> Then why are there no Prophets, where does the Didache say that this
> office was abolished? Is your Priest a Prophet? Also, where are the
> Teachers", workers of
> miracles, also those having gifts of healing in your Church?

+++
When did the OC abolish them, as you continue to erroneous claim? These
are roles open for everyone, not administrative offices, Learner.
You're not paying attention. Nor are these roles like Cub Scout badges
so you can build yourself up in pride.
+++

>>Our teachings and practices are consistent with the early Church and
>>you've not shown one instance otherwise. I've demonstrated in abundance
>>that Baptists hold practices contrary than what you see in the Didache.
>
>
> Repeating something ad nauseam does not make it true. Neither the

+++
Oh? Repeat the same fallacious harangues ad nauseum, and you're going
to get the same ad nauseum spanking.
+++

> Orthodox nor the Baptists adhere to the Didache. I have
> consistently said that modern forms of Christianity are developments
> out of early Christianity.

+++
They are contradictions to early Christianity. They embrace some wrong
(formally known as "heretical") doctrines from early Christianity.
You're incapable of grasping that Paul and the Apostles warned against
wrong doctrines and distortions of Scripture.
+++

> In regard to which Church incorporates more or less of the
> characteristics of early Christianity, it really does not much matter,
> because none of them are identical with the various forms of earliest
> Christianity.

+++
But most are contradictions to early Christianity. They embrace some
wrong (formally known as "heretical") doctrines from early Christianity.
You're incapable of grasping that Paul and the Apostles warned against
wrong doctrines and distortions of Scripture.
+++

> Once again, in The Didache we find no icons, no veneration of saints,
> no infant baptism, in that respect Protestantism in general is closer.

+++
Another repeat of the fallacious argument ex siletio.

Read from Wikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

"The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics
against the virgin birth of Christ. St Paul, for example, does not
mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence
that he did not know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted
proof of Paul's ignorance, it is a logical fallacy, because ignorance is
only one possible reason for Paul's silence: it's also possible that he
did not think the virgin birth was important or relevant to his
reasoning, or that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost or
mutilated. However, the argument from silence is not fallacious if it is
used to prove that Paul may have been ignorant. From the fact that Paul
refers to the resurrection, it is certain that he knew of it; from the
fact that Paul does not refer to the virgin birth, it is not certain
that he knew of it, therefore he may have been ignorant of it."

Furthermore, the Didache doesn't say anything about infant baptism.
+++

> There are other aspects reflected in other modern branches of
> Christianity. But this really doesn't mattere since no Church can
> claim to be "THE" fullness of faith, "THE" Church of the Apostles,
> "THE" one and only "true Church". All are descendants, bearing some
> of the traits of early Christianity, but in mixtures, with none of it
> the same.

+++
But most are contradictions to early Christianity. They embrace some
wrong (formally known as "heretical") doctrines from early Christianity.
You're incapable of grasping that Paul and the Apostles warned against
wrong doctrines and distortions of Scripture.

The apostolic doctrines, beliefs, and practices remain intact in the
Orthodox Church today and you've not demonstrated otherwise. All
Orthodox credal formulas, liturgical texts, and doctrinal statements
affirm the original apostolic faith, which was also expressed in the
apostolic traditions of the first centuries. There were indeed other
beliefs and practices, which were not apostolic, and constituted a
diverse body of wrong doctrines, as so stated Paul and the other Apostles.
+++

>>>>The entire Didache

>>>>is consistent with Orthodox theology, while it contains practices which
>>>>you don't follow and yet Protestants believe they are following a purer
>>>>Christianity which exists only in their minds.
>>>
>>>
>>>The is no way one can reach this conculsion after reading the Didache.
>>
>>That's the exact conclusion one gets after reading the Didache. As I
>>wrote before, a Protestant has to ignore half of what he reads to make
>>literalist sense out of it.
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>
>>>>As Newman once said, the farther back in history one studies, the lesser he
>>>>remains a Protestant.
>
>
>
>>>Sure, Christianity itself is, relative to all of human history, a new
>>>development. So, I guess the further back we go, the more Pagan we
>>>become!
>
>
>>His words were in reference to Christians, but of course that's not
>>obvious for one who can't escape the literalist box.
>
>
> Which is not the point. Protestantism is a new development in human
> history, but then again, so was Christianity which has existed for
> about 2,000 years.
>
> Lerner

+++
The point is that Protestantism was a new development with many new
doctrines that contradicted previous Christianity, interpreted Scripture
out of the context of the previous 1500 years, threw away traditions
held for the previous 1500 years, and ignores half of what is written in
Scripture.
+++

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<Iop7d.79779$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
> The original issue was:
>
>
>>>>6) Imperfection in continuity (or a human being within that continuity)
>>>>means continuity doesn't exist.
>
>
> A claim that I never made, but let's look at the arguments against it,
> or whatever random response that you generate.
>
>
>>>The same can be said of any Church, including Orthodoxy. All Churches
>>>are historical developments.
>
>
>
>>There's a difference between historical development of doctrines that
>>are consistent with prior doctrines and belief, and adopting new
>>doctrines that contradict previous ones (or adopting those that were
>>decided to be heresies by consent of the Church from across the
>>Christian world). The latter is a trait of Protestants, the former of
>>the Orthodox Church.
>
>
> Really? How about icons, for example? The Quinisext Council admits
> that icons were not used in the early Church, however Christian
> symbols were present. "Having welcomed these ancient figures and
> shadows as symbols of the truth passed on to the Church, today we
> prefer grace and truth..."
>
> The Second Nicene Council, also know as the seventh "Ecumenical
> Council" [787 A.D.], decreed that Icons must be venerated and
> invoked a curse on those who did not, or do not, follow this practice.

+++
It did not retroactively anathemize early Christians. Note how once
again you don't provide the source material. It sets off the BS alert
in sober minds. You take the uneducated Baptist path in trying to
understand icons, a path that isn't supported by Lutherans, Anglicans,
or Methodists. Ask yourself why, Learner. Do you really think your
Baptist club is so much smarter than other Protestants who read the same
Bible and believe in sola scriptura, and yet they say icons are just
fine and "once saved/always saved" is a lie?
+++

> The final outcome of the 7th "Ecumenical Council" was the
> condemnation of the early Christians simply because they did not
> venerate Icons. Through this Council, the Orthodox Church cut itself
> off from the traditions and beliefs of the early Church - which did
> not venerate Icons.

+++
It did not retroactively anathemize early Christians. Note how once
again you don't provide the source material. It sets off the BS alert
in sober minds. I've corrected you on this misrepresentation already.
+++

>>>The major mistake of Orthodoxy is to read later opinions back into
>>>earlier times. We know that icons were a late development in the
>
>
>
>>Uh huh, yeah right. You wouldn't be guilty of this major mistake, would
>>you?
>
>
> No, I would not. Can you show me where I have made such an error, or
> is this yet another of your answers for the sake of saying something,
> anything?

+++
Infant baptism, sola scriptura, rapture theology, and "once saved/always
saved".
+++

>><sigh> Here you go again, with something you *know* without any
>>substantive evidence. Eusebius writes about icons in the early Church
>>that were as old as the time of the Apostles (and he was hostile to the
>>practice which makes him a fairly objective source). Quotes from his
>>work were provided, but you pretend it wasn't. There's a big difference
>>between what you *know*, and what *we* read in the written record.
>
>
> Eusebius was born in the 3rd century, so how would he know? The myth
> of the Edessa cloth was created by the first "orthodox" bishop of
> Edessa, [Bishop Kune], who fed it to Eusebius. The purpose of this
> story was derail the native Gnostic brand of Christianity in favor of
> the "orthodox" Church.
>
> When we fast-forward to the 4th century, we have the Jesus-Abgar V
> connection - the Doctrine of Addai [which Eusebius did not mention].
> Having an incarnation of the Word in art was another weapon against
> the Nestorian heresy.
>
>
>>But you continue referring to the Didache as an isolated document in a
>>vacuum that expresses a unified set of practices in the ante-Nicene
>>Church. Which is it? Were there unified non-Orthodox practices or were
>>there a bunch of mercurial, undocumented practices which you somehow
>>discovered in the 1500's?
>
>
> There was a wide spectrum of beliefs in early Christianity. This is
> not my opinion, but the opinion of numerous historians who are far
> more intelligent than you or I.

+++

But most are contradictions to early Christianity. They embrace some
wrong (formally known as "heretical") doctrines from early Christianity.
You're incapable of grasping that Paul and the Apostles warned against
wrong doctrines and distortions of Scripture.

It's funny that you refer to intelligent historians, because you
disregard most of them, including the Protestant ones who refute your
prohibition against infant baptism, "onced saved/always saved" hocus
pocus, and icons.

The apostolic succession has continued unbroken, to this day, and not
even well-schooled, professional Protestant scholars such as Philip
Schaff, J.N.D. Kelly, and former Protestant Jaroslav Pelikan attempt the
ludicrous sophistry you're pulling.

J.N.D. Kelly writes (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 191; section: "The
Beginnings of Ecclesiology"):

"What these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the
empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the
distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an
invisible Church... For the fuller development of the theory of the
invisible, pre-existent Church we have to look to Valentinian Gnosticism. "

What Protestants have resurrected with their invisible Church theory is
a form of Gnostic heresy. It's the only way you can make *partial*
sense of NT references to the Church.

Philip Schaff writes (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II):
"The fathers [of the ante-Nicene period A.D. 100-325] all saw in the
church, though with different degrees of clearness, a divine,
supernatural order of things, in a certain sense the continuation of the
life of Christ on earth, the temple of the Holy Spirit, the sole
repository of the powers of divine life, the possessor and interpreter
of the Holy Scriptures, the mother of all the faithful.

She is catholic, this is complete, and alone true, in distinction from
all parties and sects. Catholicity, strictly taken, includes the three
marks of universality, unity, and exclusiveness, and is an essential
property of the church as the body and organ of Christ, who is, in fact,
the only Redeemer for all men.

Equally inseparable from her is the predicate of apostolicity, that is,
the historical continuity or unbroken succession, which reaches back
through the bishops to the apostles, from the apostles to Christ, and
from Christ to God.

In view of the fathers, every theoretical departure from this empirical,
tangible, catholic church is heresy, that is, arbitrary, subjective,
ever changing human opinion; every practical departure, all disobedience
to her rules is schism, or dismemberment of the body of Christ; either
is rebellion against divine authority, and a heinous, if not the most
heinous, sin. No heresy can reach the conception of the church, or
rightly claim any one of her predicates; it forms at best a sect or
party, and consequently falls within the province and the fate of human
and perishing things, while the church is divine and indestructible.
...this is without doubt the view of the ante-Nicene fathers."

Baptist theologian Augustus Strong criticized (Systematic Theology,
1907, reprinted 1967, p.915) John Calvin for his "objection to the
identity of the presbyter and the bishop . . . on the ground of 1 Tim
5:17". He also writes: "Calvin was a natural aristocrat, not a man of
the people like Luther . . . He believed in authority and loved to
exercise it. He could easily have been a despot . . . He resolved church
discipline into police control. He confessed that the eldership was an
expedient to which he was driven by circumstances, though after creating
it he naturally enough endeavored to procure Scriptural proof in its
favor."

As former Protestant-turned Orthodox convert Jaroslav Pelikan wrote:

"Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the
second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies
over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the 16th century, for
'in the ante-Nicene Church . . . there was no notion of sola Scriptura,
but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.' "

There was no sola scripture, nor did the OC ever subscribe to sola
tradition as you erroneously assert. The living Faith within the
visible Church was the focal point of Christian life, and it remains so
today.
+++

>>The funny thing is, you find evidence of everything in the early Church
>>except for Orthodoxy.
>
>
> There are elements of Orthodoxy there as well.

+++
Where?
+++

>>A part of the problem is that it's like a
>>dissected, half-a$$ religion that opts for the common denominator rather
>>than the fullness of the Faith as practiced by Christians for almost the
>>entirety of the last two thousand years.
>
>
> I hope that this is not your faith speaking through you!
>
>
>>Another problem for you is that these variations of early beliefs were never
>>held by the majority,
>
>
> How do you know this? The winners always write history.

+++
Sounds like you've embraced National Socialist historical theory.

There are vast encyclopedias of the ante- and post-Nicene Fathers. Go
investigate.
+++

>>and the majority of Church Fathers condemned wrong beliefs as heresies
>>in Ecumenical Councils....
>
>
> Well duh! If they supported unpopular beliefs, then they wouldn't be
> "Church Fathers" - now would they?

+++
Untrue. Augustine is regarded as a Church Father by the OC, but many of
his ideas are rejected as un-Orthodox. You simply don't know what you
are talking about.
+++

>>>>apostolic succession is illustrated in Scripture....
>
>
> Where?

+++
Apostolic authority:
Luke 10:16
Luke 9:1; 10:19
Luke 22:29
Matt. 10:1,40
Matt. 16:19; 18:18
John 13:20
John 17:18; 20:21
2 Peter 2:10

Apostolic succession:
Acts 1:15-26
Acts 6:6
Acts 8:17; 19:6
Acts 9:17-19 (Note that Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only
becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a
proof for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a
legitimate successor of the apostles.)
Acts 14:23
2 Cor. 1:21-22
1 Tim. 4:14
1 Tim. 5:22
2 Tim. 1:6
2 Tim. 4:1-6 (Note the line: "For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they
have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers")
2 Tim. 2:2
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1
1 John 4:6
Acts 5:13

Evidence that apostolic succession was continuing tradition from the OT:
Exodus 40:15
Numbers 3:3
Numbers 16:40
Numbers 27:18-20
Deut. 34:9

In addition, continuous tradition and Patristic writings support
apostolic succession. Again, in order for you to make sense of your
ahistorical doctrines, you have to wipe away history and ignore
Patristic and Scriptural evidence to the contrary.
+++

>>>Hmm, if "apostolic succession" is so critical, why didn't Jesus or
>>>Paul explicitly require it? The one passage cited by proponents of
>>>Apostolic succession is Matt. 16:18 - on which Catholics and Orthodox
>>>differ greatly! Additionally, what good is Apostolic succession? The
>>>Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics all claim to have it and each
>>>has teachings that contradict the others. Which is correct?
>>
>>Provide these teachings that contradict the others. I'm not responding
>>to unsubstantiated air balls.
>
>
> Purgatory/no Purgatory, Toll Houses, different dates for Easter - all
> derived from Tradition.

+++
The early dates for Easter were local traditions, not the Holy
Tradition. The fixed date based on a Paschal formula became Holy
Tradition following First EC.

Purgatory isn't a mandatory RCC doctrine, and it isn't Orthodox. You've
been corrected on that one already. Toll Houses are not an Orthodox
doctrine. I corrected you on that one a few weeks ago. As can be
expected from our the Perpetual Learner, he'll keep coming back with his
errors and fallacious rants.
+++

>>>Second, a Bishop of the first century Church was very different from
>>>what we have today. We can clearly see the evolution of Church
>>>government in Pauls letters.
>>
>>Such evolution isn't clear at all. You presume his earlier letters
>>provide summaries of all roles held by Church leaders. This is what
>>happens when your only recourse is to proof-text and hyper-rationalize
>>every word in Scripture without a longstanding ecclesiastical body to
>>help you out with a proper context.
>
>
> The evolution is crystal clear if you look at Paul's Epistles in
> chronological order.

+++
The fact that a chronology of letters exists in the NT canon, a canon
provided to you by the OC, doesn't establish evolution.
+++

>>>Paul recognized "Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers" then, workers of
>>>miracles, also those having gifts of healing (1 Corinthians 12:28).
>>
>>This is the conflation of roles and offices among evangelicals that I've
>>read in other debates. Those were not official offices in the
>>hierarchy. Bishops could and did perform the role of prophet, and the
>>Apostles could and some did perform the role of bishop. Eusebius writes
>>(History of the Church, p. 118):
>
>
>
>>"All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James
>>himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother,
>>were still alive..."
>
>
> Perhaps roles overlapped, but why were all but Deacon [and there were
> female deacons in the early Church] and Bishop abolished? Why are
> there no female Deacons today?

+++
The office of deaconess may very well return as it's perfectly
canonical. The office simply fell into disuse. That's not the same as
being abolished.
+++

>>The Didache also mentions bishops performing the role of prophets in the
>>Church. You're providing a list of "roles" that could be played by
>>various Church offices, including regular lay persons, while at the same
>>time we have evidence that bishops and deacons existed during the time
>>of the Apostles. In the Didache (Chapter 15), we read about bishops and
>>deacons. Some scholars guesstimate the Didache was written as early as
>>50 A.D., which puts it in the same time frame as 1 Corinthians, if not a
>>bit earlier.
>
>
> I didn't make this list, Paul did.
>
>
>>I don't know why you would subscribe to the most mind-bending theory,
>>that Christ's Apostles initiated one form of Church governance, then
>>suddenly here come the bad 'ol Orthodox Catholics who wipe it out and
>>institute an "incorrect tradition." Why would Christ allow the early
>>Church to be set up in one form and the later Church in another?
>
>
> That is not what I said. Church government evolved over time and the
> Church forced Bishops to be unmarried to prevent their children from
> inheriting Church property and titles - regardless of what Paul wrote
> to the contrary.

+++
Paul wrote nothing to the contrary and you haven't demonstrated such.
+++

>>>There is no office of Bishop and certainly no succession, at to this
>>>point in history.
>>
>>You infer absence of office XYZ because you presume 1 Corinthians
>>provides a laundry list of offices, which you haven't proven. This is
>>the same technique you take to the Didache.
>
>
> No. We can trace both Paul's Epistles and the evolution of Church
> government described in them, over the course of time. That is what
> historians do.

+++
Except they don't simply rely on one document to prove one theory,
ignoring every other availabe written record, while then ignoring that
same document to prove another theory. The Didache, written in the
early part of Paul's ministry (and just to parrot your argumentum ex
siletio - there is no mention of Paul's letters in the Didache; must
mean the Didache came first!), mentions bishops and deacons. Your
evolution theory doesn't stand up. Furthermore, you promote this idea
that evolved doctrines from the 1500's are legitimate, but supposedly
evolved offices within the OC in the late 1st century are not. This
makes no sense.

Your method here has affinites with the Texas sharpshooter fallacy,
where patterns are found where none exists.
+++

>>>In Ephesians 4:11 Paul inserts "Evangelists and Pastors" after
>>>Prophets and before Teachers. A slightly different revision is made in
>>>Romans 12:6-7, where Diakonia is placed before teaching as one of the
>>>"gifts differing" (kharismata).
>>
>>Again, one can assume different roles at once - say Evangelist and
>>Apostle - while holding an office, say that of bishop.
>
>

+++
What happened to your sole obsession to the Didache? Did it get
transferred over to Paul's Epistles?
+++

>>>The Apostles were the founders of the Church. They appointed Prophets
>>>and Teachers to care for the growing Church. So, Apostles, Prophets
>>>and Teachers were the basic foundation of Paul's organization of the
>>>Church.
>>
>>You don't know that. These roles were often overlapping, and didn't
>>necessarily correspond to a hierarchical office in the Church.
>
>
> Sure I do. Read Paul's Epistles.

+++
Paul's Epistles show an overlapping of offices. He references James,
who is an Apostle and the Bishop of Jerusalem. You're ignoring the
inconvenient passages again.
+++

>>Also, there most certainly was the concept of an episcopate even before
>>the birth of Christ. In the Septuagint, "episkopos" is used for
>>overseer in various senses in Nehemiah 11:9, 2 Chronicles 34:12 & 17,
>>Judges 9:28, Isaiah 60:17, and Numbers 4:16. In Job 20:29, God is
>>referred to as episkopos. Christ is an episkopos in 1 Peter 2:25, and
>>that's why today we refer to him as the Bishop over the entire Church.
>
>
> Perhaps, but did this office in any way resemble that of a modern
> Bishop? The Philosophy Club here at NYU has a "President", so is he
> the same as George Bush?

+++
There you go again. Fallacy of a meaningless statement, by way of
distinction without a difference.
+++

>>The episcopacy was hardly a 2nd century innovation that would have
>>"shocked" 1st century Christians.
>
>
> Sure. The myth of Apostolic succession first appears in a rather
> immature form
> in I Clement:

+++
Actually the concept is found in the OT first, and then picked up by
Christ and the Apostles. I've quoted you relevant Scriptural passages,
not that you really care what Scripture says when it's inconvenient for
your ahistorical doctrines.
+++

> 42:7 "So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed
> their
> first fruits, when they had tested them by the Spirit, to be overseers
> and
> deacons to to those who were to believe."
>
> The word for "overseers" here is "episkopos," which later became
> "bishop." Clement's statement is found in a etter of rebuke for which
> some authority was needed. That authority was found in the myth that
> authority came down through the years from Jesus through the Apostles.

+++
St. Clement's Letter to the Corinthians was written in 80 A.D., which
was BEFORE many books of the NT was written. Funny how the great
Perpetual Learner single-handedly dismisses a doctrine as "myth" when it
suits his purposes, something truly learned Protestant do not do. (I'm
just waiting for you to dismiss half of the NT as myth, especially those
parts that tell you to obey the Church of the Apostles and whatever else
doesn't jive with your looney beliefs.)
+++

> Clement began the transformation of Christianity into a hierarchy
> unlike the simpler arrangement found in the earlier Christianity, such
> as in the Didache.

+++
Again you display your dishonesty. Bishops and deacons are referenced
in the Didache.
+++

> The next big step in this evolution was Ignatius, who mentions in
> Magnesians 6 the "bishop presiding in the place of God." It is
> Ignatius who introduced, at least in writting, the notion of a
> monarchical bishop.

+++
You've ignored the Scriptural evidence to the contrary, some of which
I've provided. Furthermore, your attempt to portray the Church Fathers
as being silent on apostolic succession is as laughable as your earlier
claim that they didn't believe in the real presence (which I spanked you
for twice). You're in way over your head.

(provided by www.deoomnisgloria.com)
# St. Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians. c. 80 A.D. – 42, 1
(20). Discusses how the apostles tested men to become bishops and
deacons. Also argues that this is not a new teaching.
# St. Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians. c. 80 A.D. – 44, 1
(21). A complete argument showing the necessity of apostolic succession
(note: this is before many books of the Bible were written).
# St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Trallians. c. 110 A.D. – 2, 1
(48). We must “submit to the bishop as [we] would to Jesus Christ.”
# St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Trallians. c. 110 A.D. – 3, 1
(49). The bishop is a “type of the Father.” This also clearly defines
the separate roles within the Church.
# St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans. c. 110 A.D. – 8, 1
(65). Whatever the bishop does is “secure and valid” – we should follow
the bishops as Christ follows the Father. Uses the word “Eucharist.”
# St. Hegesippus Fragment in Eusebius’ History of the Church. c. 180
A.D. – 4, 22, 1 (188). Historical recording of the succession of bishops.
# St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 3, 3, 1 (209).
Describes apostolic succession and how teachings were handed down from
the apostles.
# St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 3, 3, 4 (212).
Explains that Polycarp was “appointed bishop” of Smyrna and mentions the
“successors of Polycarp”
# St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 4, 26, 2 (237).
Explains that we should obey those who have “part in the primitive
succession” from the Apostles.
# St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 4, 33, 8 (242). Shows
how the “tradition of the Scriptures” is handed down through the
succession of bishops.
# St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 5, 20, 1 (257).
Suggests you can spot heretics because of their “scattered” doctrine and
lack of the “firm tradition of the Apostles.”
# Tertullian The Demurrer Against the Heretics. c. 200 A.D. – 32, 1
(296). Says dissenters must show that they come from the Apostles.
Elaborate detail on succession to argue against heretics.
+++

>>"Incorrect tradition?" By whose authority did you confer that it is
>>incorrect?
>
>
> History.

+++
Whose history? You said the winners write it. Make up your mind.
+++

>>This is the big problem with the mindset you bring to the
>>table. You'll engage in deflections and sophistry in denying Tradition
>>exists (because we supposedly have no solid means of delineating true
>>Traditions),
>
>
> Tradition exists in a sort of nebulous, undefined way. When the
> Church needs to prove a point, it cites something, or someone, and
> calls it tradtion.

+++
Where did you get the NT canon? Orthodox Catholic Tradition.
+++

>>in addition to denouncing the authority of the Church and
>>its hierarchical structure in favor of your own authority (quote: "I
>>prefer to think for myself and do not need to appeal to authority to
>>support my beliefs."), and you earlier wrote the non-trivial assertion
>>that even Protestants have evolved... and yet here you are speaking
>>about incorrect tradition and criticizing the evolution of the governing
>>structure of the Church. Earlier, you denied that the Church today
>>existed at the time of Paul, now you say the Church evolved beyond the
>>structure of the early Paulist period, to an incorrect tradition of
>>apostolic succession in the 2nd century. You're implicitly admitting
>>that the Orthodox hierarchical structure grew out of the Church of
>>Paul's times.
>
>
> All Churches grew out of the Churches of Paul's time! All Churches

+++
No, they didn't. There is no Calvary Church of Corinth. The Churches
you read about in the NT still exist today and they are in the Greek
Orthodox jurisdiction. Your case is proven false.
+++

> can point back to the ancient Church to justify some of their beliefs.
> However, no Church can draw a straight and unbroken line back to the
> first century Church.

+++
The OC does. The apostolic doctrines, beliefs, and practices remain

intact in the Orthodox Church today and you've not demonstrated
otherwise. All Orthodox credal formulas, liturgical texts, and
doctrinal statements affirm the original apostolic faith, which was also
expressed in the apostolic traditions of the first centuries. There
were indeed other beliefs and practices, which were not apostolic, and
constituted a diverse body of wrong doctrines, as so stated Paul and the
other Apostles.
+++

>>The only consistent thread in your beliefs is that you've pre-decided

>>that apostolic succession is bad, and any argumentative means are
>>legitimate to refute it, even if these arguments contradict each other.
>
>
> I didn't say it was bad. It simply was not a part of earliest
> Christianity.

+++
You've been proven wrong by Scripture, Patristic writings, and the
unbroken tradition of apostolic succession since the Apostles. The
Churches you read about in the NT still exist today and they are in the
Greek Orthodox jurisdiction. Your case is proven false.
+++

>>It also looks to me like you read a bit more over the last day and are
>>now finally adjusting your beliefs.
>
>
> How so?
>
>
>>A repeat of your fallacious talking points. I'll cut-n-paste my earlier
>>response again...
>
>
> Which still doesn't answer the question at hand!

+++
There is no "question at hand" with you. That's the problem. You have
no questions, period. You're only here to fallaciously rant and
harangue and whine that no one has answered your questions. I've seen
this same trollish behavior in several boards from plenty of other
whining fundamentalists. You've been at it in this newsgroup for at
least two years, with no change in your talking points or sign of
maturity in your argumentation.
+++

>>Your fallacious claim that reference to a few heretics in this long
>>lineage proves the lineage is either non-existent or broken is shown
>>false by counter-example...
>
>
> If the Holy Spirit is a part of the equation, then the line is broken.

+++
No, the line remains unbroken. You've not demonstrated otherwise. The
Lord promised there would be tares in the wheat, and the Church would
undergo tribulation. The Patriarch isn't the Orthodox Church, nor is
any single individual. Again, this gets back to your repeated fallacies
of division and composition.
+++

>>"Because Nixon was a crook, broke the Constitution, and resigned,
>>therefore, there's no continuity in the US government (or Presidency).
>>There's no such thing as a continuous lineage of US Presidents. The
>>process of succession for the office of President, the ultimate enforcer
>>of the Law, therefore isn't important."
>
>
> Bad analogy, since no one in their right mind believes the Presidency
> to be a Divinely appointed office which is always guided by the Holy
> Spirit. In fact, most people assume that Presidents are liars and
> crooks. Every President in my lifetime could easily be prosecuted for
> war crimes.

+++
Bad reasoning, and you're being dishonest again. You were already
corrected many times before, Learner, on this exact same
counter-example. You are twisting the counter-example into something it
is not, inserting "Holy Spirit" when it was "will of the people." You
pulled this stunt before, and I'll cut-n-paste the actual counter-example:

The President is the top law enforcer of the land, and his power is
derived from the will of the people. This is analogous to a Patriarch's
role in enforcing 'right' doctrine in the Church, and his power is given
by the Holy Spirit. To say that a particular President failed to follow
the will of the people in a specific instance doesn't invalidate that
this office is sustained by the people's will. What your reasoning
would say is that because Nixon or Clinton broke the law, the idea that
the President is the pillar of law enforcement and that there has been
an unbroken succession of Presidents since George Washington is
"nonsensical." Your reasoning resorts to sophistry in claiming that
because a particular President broke the law, or didn't follow the will
of the people, then the office of the President and the succession of
holders of that office doesn't exist. This is what's truly nonsensical.
+++

>>This is the illogical nonsense that you continuously throw out. Those
>>few heretics were booted out, denounced, and the office that they
>>occupied continued on as it had since the Apostles.
>
>
> Often long after the fact. The unanswered question is : where was the
> Holy Spirit when this was going on?

+++
How many times do you have to be corrected on this same stupid question
over and over and over and over again for years on end? Is there any
evolution in your maturity? The Holy Spirit was in the Church, as
expressed in the continuing practices and beliefs of the laity and
clergy. One stupid idiot within this Church is not going to scare away
the Holy Spirit. You've not demonstrated otherwise. Ahhhh, let me
guess... the rant about the evaporating Holy Spirit will be followed by
the harangue about "unattainable perfection", which you have made up and
erroneously call a "fallacy" when this fallacy doesn't exist in any
logic book or any website dealing with logical fallacies. One more
strike against your understanding of reasonable scholarship.
+++

>>>Another problem for the "true believerism" of Orthodoxy is Mark 9:38
>>>(also Luke 9:50):
>>
>>It's a problem? How? If others use Christ's name and bear good fruit,
>>then let them be. But if they use the name of Christ against us, then
>>they are false prophets. This doesn't alter the fact that those folks
>>might follow "incorrect doctrines", and should be corrected.
>
>
> But that is not what the Lord said, is it? One again, you answer the
> wrong question.

+++
Again you try to change the subject. You brought up the diversity of
beliefs implying there are no wrong beliefs. You were then proven
Scripturally that some beliefs were wrong. Now, you want to divert into
what the Lord said. Nice try. How about throwing out another
"unattainable perfection" rant, which you erroneously call a fallacy?
+++

>>It seems to me that you are using Christ's name in order to put yourself
>>against the Orthodox Church.
>
>
> No, I am using Christ's words to measure the truth claims of the
> Orthodox Church.

+++
No, you're not. You ignore the Lord's words. He tells you to bring the
infants to Him. He tells you to obey the Church He established in

Matthew 18:17 - "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church.
But if he refuses even to hear the Church, let him be to you like a
heathen and a tax collector."

You ignore Scripture, you disobey the Lord. Your religious club is a

fraud of dangerous proportions, deceiving people that their salvation is
gained once and for all by a simple twenty second prayer, and that their
children shouldn't be baptised, in direct contradiction to the Lord's

demand that infants be brought to Him for entry into the kingdom of heaven.
+++

>>>Apparently, the apostles had not ordained/authorized this guy, but
>>>Jesus did not stop him - in spite of the complaints of the Apostles.
>>
>>I see you recognize that there was indeed an inner clique who believed
>>the authority to teach proper doctrine was their own, and it was their
>>domain to ordain others.
>
>
> Sure there was, and they were wrong, at least according to Jesus.
>
>
>>>So, when Paul says in Titus 1:6 says that a Bishop must be the husband
>>>of one wife, what he is *really* saying is that a Bishop must be the
>>>husband of no wife? Why does you Church feel it necessary to correct
>>>Paul?
>>
>>Is it really that difficult for you? Do you really believe Paul ordered
>>bishops to be married, and ordinary laymen could choose to be married or
>>not? For what purpose? That makes absolutely no sense. The passage
>>does not mandate marriage. It's limiting a bishop to one wife.
>
>
> Did Paul order Bishops to be un-married as your Church requires?

+++
No, neither did he order they be married, or prohibit their celibacy,
about which you refuse to provide the source quote which demonstrates such.
+++

> Please answer one question! Your twisting of Scripture and reason
> makes even less sense and shows how far Orthodoxy has wandered from
> Christian teachings. It also shows how far Orthodox, such as you,
> will go to defend the ideas of their idol - the Orthodox Church.

+++
There was a question in that harangue?

Christ tells you to obey the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he

refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to
hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

You ignore Scripture, you disobey the Lord. Your religious club is a

fraud of dangerous proportions, deceiving people that their salvation is
gained once and for all by a simple twenty second prayer, and that their
children shouldn't be baptised, in direct contradiction to the Lord's
demand that infants be brought to Him.
+++

>>You reject Christ by calling His Church an idol. He orders you to

>>listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he refuses to hear them,
>>tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to hear the Church, let
>>him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."
>
>
> I do not reject Christ at all, I reject the claim that the Orthodox
> Church is His one and only true Church. To do so is, in my heart and
> mind, a grave insult to the Lord.

+++
Your delusions in your heart and mind are your problem.
+++

>>Divorce is a grave sin that requires repentance, an idea foreign to
>>Baptists. Your mind is stuck in either/or.
>
>
> Baptists don't repent of divorce? How do you know what all Baptists
> do?

+++
How do you know what all Orthodox do?
+++

>>Mark 10:11-12 doesn't forbid divorce.
>
>
> I wasn't talking about divorce. As usual, you attempt to answer an
> unasked question. I was talking about re-marriage - which your Church
> allows.

+++
Yes, you were. Again, you show your dishonesty, clipping your comments
about divorce, then saying you weren't talking about divorce. Here is
what you posted DIRECTLY before my post and my comments about Mark 10:

Learner's quote: "But then again, since you want to shift to this
subject, Jesus spoke out against divorce and re-marriage [Mark 10:12]."

Enough of your dishonesty, O' Perpetual Learner.
+++

>>Divorce isn't a light affair in the Orthodox Church and
>
>
> I didn't say that it was. You brought up the subject!

+++
Learner's quote in his previous message: "But then again, since you want
to shift to this subject, Jesus spoke out against divorce and
re-marriage [Mark 10:12]."
+++

> <canned Orthodox apologetic snipped>
>

+++
Snip and tuck are what one can expect from Baptist baloney pulled from
the can ;-)
+++

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<JSp7d.79978$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>>And it is a totally wrong interpretation of the passage. The context
>>>of this is:
>
>
>
>>>"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my
>>>presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your
>>>salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to
>>>will and to act according to his good purpose."
>
>
>
>>>The use of the term "dear friends" [agapetos] implies that Paul was
>>>addressing people who were already saved. God does call us to do
>>>good, but these works are not terms of our salvation - they are the
>>>fruit of salvation which God motivates and enables us to do.
>
>
>
>>Ha ha ha ha ha :-))))) You gotta be kidding. You read "dear friends"
>>and presume they were saved?
>
>
> Yes I do. Why else would Paul used the term agapetos?
>

+++
You obviously don't know what the word means, which is the adjective
form of the noun "agape." It literally translates to "beloved ones."
It has nothing to do with salvation. The word is also used in Romans
5:8 ("But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were
still sinners, Christ died for us.") In Greek, it reads "?????????? ??
??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ????? ???? ???????
???? ???? ????????".

This clearly shows God loved us before Christ died for us, invalidating
any kind of assertion that this word has any kind of salvation connotation.
+++

[snip more of the Learner Dance]

This is what you really need to fix your problems...

Composting Horse Manure
by E. A. Ott, E. L. Johnson, R. A. Nordstedt2

Management of horse farm wastes is an ever increasing problem for horse
owners and horse facility managers. This is especially true where horses
are stalled and land availability limited. Examples of the latter
include race tracks, training centers, horse show complexes, public
stables, and even some private horse farms.

In the past, these materials have been piled on unused land, deposited
in ravines and eroded ditches, hauled to landfills, burned, and used as
soil amendments for cropland. With the increasing emphasis on the
control of environmental pollution, many of the above options are no
longer acceptable. Alternative utilization or disposal procedures are
essential. One of the most promising alternatives is the conversion of
the materials to organic soil amendments via composting. Composted horse
manure can be used to increase the organic matter content and thus the
water and nutrient holding capacity of sandy soils in agricultural and
home gardening settings. The material can also be used by plant
nurseries as potting soil and is an excellent media for the production
of mushrooms, fish worms, etc.

Horse stall wastes include feces, urine, bedding material, hay, and
sometimes waste feed. Bedding materials make up a large portion of the
waste and may include straw, wood shavings, sawdust, grass hay, peanut
hulls, shredded paper and other locally available products. These
products are characterized by their high organic matter content, bulky
nature, high absorption ability, and low nitrogen content.

Composting is a method whereby the organic component of the solid waste
is biologically decomposed under controlled conditions to a state in
which it can be handled, stored, and applied to the land without
adversely affecting the environment. A key phrase in the above
definition is "under controlled conditions." This distinguishes
composting from the biological decomposition processes which occur
naturally, and it also differentiates composting from some objectionable
practices such as open dumps, piles of rotting manure, and other
accumulations of waste materials.

There are two types of composting systems, aerobic and anaerobic, and
many procedures for accomplishing each. Aerobic composting implies
decomposition in the presence of oxygen. Most commercial composting
systems are aerobic, since anaerobic systems are more likely to produce
foul odors. Even though aerobic systems may not be completely free of
odors, they can usually be described as producing a minimum of
objectional odors. Aerobic composting is more rapid than anaerobic
composting; also, anaerobic composting does not result in an appreciable
rise in temperature, while in most aerobic composting systems the
temperature exceeds the thermal tolerance of most plant and animal
pathogens and parasites. Weed seeds are also destroyed.

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

[snip two-year old harangue]

This is what you really need to fix your problems.

Composting Horse Manure

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

[snip two-year old harangue - let us know when you learn a new harangue]

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<_FK8d.97436$nA6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> learner wrote:
>
> [snip two-year old harangue]
>
> This is what you really need to fix your problems.
>
> Composting Horse Manure
> by E. A. Ott, E. L. Johnson, R. A. Nordstedt2

Is this an Orthodox answer? Amazing that you associate your faith
with the composting of horse manure! Freudian slip perhaps?

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<_qx8d.103785$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> You raised some thoughtful points, Alice. Thank you.

Yes indeed, thank you Alice.

> BTW, Islam also denies Christ was crucified and resurrected, as well as
> the Trinity. The basis for this religion is that the angel Gabriel
> appeared to Mohammed and told him Christianity was a lie, Jesus wasn't
> God and wasn't crucified or resurrected. As St. John Damscene wrote,
> this has the markings of a visit from the Evil One, not one of the
> Lord's messengers, which makes Mohammed an anti-Christ.

The thing that I find fascinating, when looking at the larger picture
of history, is that this whole issue of iconophilia came at a
watershed in history. During and after the time of the 7th Ecumenical
Council, Islam gained at lot of power, converts, and territory to the
degree that Islam effectively decimated the Eastern Church within a
few centuries.

Perhaps the constant battles within the Eastern Church weakened the
institution, and its government sponsors, which aided the rise of
Islam. Or perhaps the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Council brought
God's wrath and judgment on the Eastern Church, which barely exists
today in the Middle East and Asia Minor.

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

Nah, it was a little bit of advice from Uncle Joe what you can do to get
rid of that heavy load you're carrying around on your shoulder :-P That
might allow you to engage in serious dialogue rather than spin
sophistry, fallacious rants, ignorant fundie talking points, and the
dishonest approach you adopt in these discussions to snip answers and
say you weren't answered, or snip your previous comments about a topic
and say you didn't bring that topic up. Perhaps this works in your
Calvary chat rooms, but it's going to be treated like the nonsense it is
by better educated sober minds, whether from Orthodox or scholarly
Protestants, who know better than to believe in the "once saved/always
saved" lies, among other Baptist innovations with no historical
precedent and which contradict the entire previous history of Christianity.

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

And the Baptists don't exist anywhere at all in that region. Perhaps
it's God's wrath and judgement that their influence is only limited to
the uneducated in the West, as studies show they are at the bottom of
ladder when it comes to education, and Orthodox are near the top :)

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<oCA8d.58616$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

Most of this rant is a repetition of your cut-and-paste polemics
throughout this thread. Normally, in a dialogue, a person makes a
statement which is followed by a counter-statement from the other
side. The counter-statements that you cut-and-pasted were answered in
previous discussions, yet you ignore my responses in favor of
re-pasting the ideas of others.

This clearly shows that either you have no answers of your own, or
that you cannot find any polemics to cut-and-paste to answer the issue
at hand. I suspect that your situation is a combination of the two.

For those who are interested, they can read the chronological
progression of this discussion.

Now let's look at the new material that you present.

> > Really? Then did the first Century Christians make/venerate icons?

> +++
> God made the first icon in Christ.

Not an answer. Christ was a human form, not a piece of wood. The
reason that Christ came to this world was not to found your idol - the
Orthodox Church. Christ came to justify us before God through
substitutionary atonement and this is clear in Scripture.

This obsession with the incarnation is an odd part of Orthodoxy. In
fact, it appears to be the whole point of Orthodoxy. If this is the
case, then everything which happened after the incarnation is
pointless to Orthodoxy. Jesus could have died in his crib without
saying a word and nothing very important would be missing from
Orthodoxy. If you disagree, the you must examine your premise.

Also, don't bother looking for an Orthodox website to cut-and-paste an
answer because I can assure you than none exists.

> We have unwritten traditions that
> St. Luke was the first iconographer, making the first icons of the
> Virgin Mary on the table used for the last supper.

An "unwritten tradition"? Is the best that you can do?

Also, you have some historical problems. Luke was not an eye witness.
Luke's main source for his Gospel was Mark. However, Mark was also
not an eye witness.

So, how could Luke paint a picture of a woman he most likely never met
and place it on the table of the last supper -which he never attended.
In fact, the earliest mention of Luke is in Paul's Epistle to
Philemon, verse 24. He is also mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and 2
Timothy 4:11.

> As far as whether a thriving icon industry suddenly sprang to life in the 1st
> century, you've been told "no" already.

I never used the term "thriving icon industry". I am looking for any
example of a first century icon, or at least, any historically
verifiable mention of one.

> It took time to understand and elucidate
> the nature of the Incarnation.

I would look at in a slightly different way. The first converts to
Christianity were Jews, who would never venerate an image.

Times changed and the idea behind icons, by the 4th and 5th centuries
was based on the fact that, at that time, most converts came from
Pagan cultures and most of these people were illiterate.

> Your harangue about whether 1st century Christians venerated icons
> completely misses the point.

First of all, it was not a "harangue". Second, it is the point.
Icons were not a part of earliest Christianity and they probably
should not be a part of it today.

> The veneration of icons isn't contradictory to 1st century theology. It's a
> further elucidation of the Incarnation of our Lord.

To a Jewish convert of the early Church, it would have been
contradictory to everything that he/she believed. Also, if icons are
an "elucidation of the Incarnation of our Lord", then why do you have
icons of Saints? Where they incarnated too?

> In addition, it's not at all inconceivable
> that images were used to help the illiterate masses understand the
> Faith, (especially when there was no NT canon until the 4th century!).

See above.

> You've got a major issue which you've run away from like the plague, and
> that is the NT canon.

I have never run away from it, as you did the differing OT canons
across Orthodoxy!

> Where in the 1st century church did anyone write
> about there being 27 books in the NT, the canon given to you by the
> Orthodox Catholic Church? Your whole Baptist project is founded on one
> super book, made up of 27 sub-books, which didn't exist for four
> centuries. It is impossible that anyone in the 1st century Church could
> have believed in sola scriptura when there was no NT canon.
> +++

There are a couple of issues here. Are you suggesting that the
Scriptures came into existence in the 4th century Synod of Carthage?
Where were they before that? Manuscript evidence shows that the
Gospel fragments existed in the first century.

A better question would be [and I doubt that you can answer it, or
even find some cut-and-paste answers]: why did the Church wait so long
to create a canon of Scripture? Is it possible that Christians "knew"
what were, and were not, Scripture - plus or minus a book or two?

I am sure that you are not aware of this, but the first NT canon was
created by a Gnostic named Marcion. The Synod of Carthage was largely
a reaction to Marcion, so why did the Church wait so long to create a
NT canon?

Also, remember that the early Christians believed that Christ would
return in their lifetime, so perhaps making an official canon was not
important.

> +++
> I'm talking about the Baptist Church, an organization that
> systematically bought and sold human beings as if they were horses,
> fomented racism, preached hatred against minorities and Jews and
> Catholics, and used the Bible to justify its actions.
> +++

First of all, I am not a Baptist, so your crude insults do nothing.
Second, when did the Baptist Church own slaves?

How many Pogroms did the Baptists foment? How many other sects, like
the Old Believers, did the Baptists burn alive while they were
worshipping? Take the beam out of your eye before you worry about the
dust in your Baptist brother's eye!

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<u3G8d.97374$nA6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

Most of this rant is a repetition of your cut-and-paste polemics
throughout this thread. Normally, in a dialogue, a person makes a
statement which is followed by a counter-statement from the other
side. The counter-statements that you cut-and-pasted were answered in
previous discussions, yet you ignore my responses in favor of
re-pasting the ideas of others.

This clearly shows that either you have no answers of your own, or
that you cannot find any polemics to cut-and-paste to answer the issue
at hand. I suspect that your situation is a combination of the two.

For those who are interested, they can read the chronological
progression of this discussion.

Now let's look at the new material that you present.

> > False. I never said that it was an "all-inclusive document". So, now

> > you proceed to answer issues that were not raised.

> +++
> That's the hidden premise in your argumentation that you would slip in.
> Do they call you Tricky Dicky in college, I wonder?

Most of my college friends are either Christians or Jews, so they do
not engage in your level of behavior

> If you now agree
> that the Didache isn't a comprehensive document regarding 1st century
> doctrines and practices, then why do you rant about missing doctrines
> and practices? Again, your incoherency.
> +++

Because, most of the major beliefs of Orthodoxy are missing in the
Didache. There is no "real presence", infant baptism, icons, prayers
to Saints, etc.. It is also odd that the New Testament lacks even the
slightest support for the making and veneration of icons. You will
not find it anywhere. It is just not there. Odd, is it not, that a
teaching which is supposed to go back to the time of the Apostles,
does not?

The silence is deafening and it clearly shows how far Orthodoxy is
from the first century Church. Now, I know your cut-and-paste answer:
the Didache doesn't forbid these things. However, it is a dangerous
teaching that what is not mentioned is not forbidden. With that kind
of reasoning the use of narcotics would be acceptable, since they are
not mentioned in the Didache or the Bible, nor is genetic engineering
of humans.

> +++
> Uh... ok. Icons are a major issue, but sola scriptura, once
> saved/always saved theology, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the
> Crucifixion, the Resurrection are trivial ones?
> +++

This is not a problem for me because I see all forms of Christianity
as historical developments.

This problem belongs to you, since your idol - the Orthodox Church
which claims: "Orthodoxy believes and proclaims that the complete and

integral faith delivered to the saints by Jesus Christ has been
preserved without alteration or diminution only within the communion
of the Orthodox Church."

History shows this claim to be false.

> +++
> This chapter doesn't say anything about how they were elected or who
> elected them.
> +++

It was most likely the people, since the early Churches were local
assemblies.

> > Read it! Notice phrases such as : 10:1 "But after it has been
> > completed, so pray ye." and 6:1 "See that no one make thee to err
> > from this path of doctrine, since he who doeth so teacheth thee apart
> > from God."
>
> +++
> And answer the questions! What happened to your earlier claim that
> there were differing beliefs and practices in the early Church? Is so,
> then why do you hold this singular document up with such importance?

There were. The Didache represents one group. The funny thing is
that no group can be found, in first century Christianity, which
resembles your Church.

For example, if you believe that Orthodoxy is a continuation of
Apostolic belief and practice, you should be able to demonstrate that
the veneration of icons is presented in Apostolic practice and
teaching. Instead you will find an
empty gap, because it was not the practice in Apostolic times - other
than
among the pagans who venerated images much as the later Christians did
once
Pagan influences successfuly penetrated Christianity.

> You've been corrected on this countless times before. Orthodox doctrine
> does not contradict the Didache.
> +++

The Didache shows a Church very different in beliefs than yours.

> Christ told you to obey that "idol" called the Church:

Prove that he was talking about your Church.

> +++
> I've already corrected you on this, Learner. They didn't fast their
> infants because this rule was for adults. Think harder, Learner.
> +++

Then where in the Didache are the rules for baptizing children. Hint:
they aren't there because they didn't baptize children!

> +++
> You wrote before that you understood that rejecting the Trinity is a
> heresy. No you call it a silly analogy. Will the real beliefs of
> Learner please stand up, rather than only those that suit the harangue
> of the moment?
> +++

The analogies used to illustrate the Triune nature of God [ie
water-ice-steam] are silly and are a great barrier for many. The
Church should have stuck with the Bible rather than attempting to
apply finite human examples to an infinite God.

> +++
> Note how you didn't post the quote. Well, here it is...
> "16:8 then shall the world behold the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven"
>
> This doesn't indicate a clear divinity as we understand it today. Is he
> rain, a flock of birds, an angel, Santa Claus, a jumbo jet?
> +++

Funny how you mock the Bible to defend your idol the Orthodox Church.
This is an allusion to Daniel's vision of the Son of Man - which
proves Christ's divinity. I do wish modern Orthodox would learn a
little about their own religion. It would make discussion so much
easier.

> +++
> A historical development in direct contradiction to 1500 years of
> Orthodox Catholic practice and doctrine. You're unable to grasp this
> important point.
> +++

An Christianity is a contradiction to 5000 years of Jewish history,
which is a contradiction of 8000 years of Hindu history.....

> > And the early Church had Apostles and Prophets, so where are yours?

> +++
> These are roles open for everyone, not administrative offices. Nor are
> these roles like Cub Scout badges so you can blow yourself up in pride.
> +++

So answer the question, where are they?

> >>The entire Didache is consistent with Orthodox theology,
> >
> >
> > Saying this over and over, doesn't make it so, Joe.
>
> +++
> You've not provided anything from the Didache that demonstrates Orthodox
> theology is contradicting it.
> +++

I have many times, see above.

> > They may perform these services, but it does not say that these
> > offices should be abolished.
>
> +++
> We abolished nothing. These are roles open for everyone, not
> administrative offices, Learner. You're not paying attention. Nor are
> these roles like Cub Scout badges so you can build yourself up in pride.
> +++

Then where are they?

> > Then who elects the Bishop?
>
> +++
> The Synod. Do your homework.
> +++

Who elects them?

> > Then why are there no Prophets, where does the Didache say that this
> > office was abolished? Is your Priest a Prophet? Also, where are the
> > Teachers", workers of
> > miracles, also those having gifts of healing in your Church?

> +++
> When did the OC abolish them, as you continue to erroneous claim? These
> are roles open for everyone, not administrative offices, Learner.
> You're not paying attention. Nor are these roles like Cub Scout badges
> so you can build yourself up in pride.
> +++

Then where are they?

> >>Our teachings and practices are consistent with the early Church and
> >>you've not shown one instance otherwise. I've demonstrated in abundance
> >>that Baptists hold practices contrary than what you see in the Didache.
> >
> >
> > Repeating something ad nauseam does not make it true. Neither the
>
> +++
> Oh? Repeat the same fallacious harangues ad nauseum, and you're going
> to get the same ad nauseum spanking.
> +++

A "spanking". Wow, you are quit the Christian! I am glad that I left
your Church lest I become like you!

Also, I am not interesting in how many steps you can use in trying to
dance around the question instead of dealing with it. There is no
point in repeating what does not apply to that question. I am only
interested in going to the heart of the matter, as should you be.

> > Orthodox nor the Baptists adhere to the Didache. I have
> > consistently said that modern forms of Christianity are developments
> > out of early Christianity.

> +++
> They are contradictions to early Christianity. They embrace some wrong
> (formally known as "heretical") doctrines from early Christianity.
> You're incapable of grasping that Paul and the Apostles warned against
> wrong doctrines and distortions of Scripture.
> +++

Orthodoxy does the same, unless you can come up with a first century
icon.

> > In regard to which Church incorporates more or less of the
> > characteristics of early Christianity, it really does not much matter,
> > because none of them are identical with the various forms of earliest
> > Christianity.

> +++
> But most are contradictions to early Christianity. They embrace some
> wrong (formally known as "heretical") doctrines from early Christianity.
> You're incapable of grasping that Paul and the Apostles warned against
> wrong doctrines and distortions of Scripture.
> +++

Orthodoxy does the same, unless you can come up with a first century
icon.

Lerner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<9DK8d.97435$nA6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> >>Ha ha ha ha ha :-))))) You gotta be kidding. You read "dear friends"
> >>and presume they were saved?


> > Yes I do. Why else would Paul used the term agapetos?

> +++
> You obviously don't know what the word means, which is the adjective
> form of the noun "agape." It literally translates to "beloved ones."

I know exactly what it means as well as the context of this quote.

> This clearly shows God loved us before Christ died for us, invalidating
> any kind of assertion that this word has any kind of salvation connotation.

You, and your Church, misses the connection between the obedience
Jesus showed in Philippians 2:8 and the obedience Paul expects of the
Philippians in 2:12. When Paul says, "work out your own salvation",
we, unlike your idol the Orthodox Church, know that Paul does not mean
"work so as to earn your own salvation". Such a statement would
contradict the whole points of Paul's Epistles. Paul never told
anyone to 'Work for your salvation', or 'Work on your salvation.' Paul
said, 'Work out your salvation.'

> This is what you really need to fix your problems...

> Composting Horse Manure
> by E. A. Ott, E. L. Johnson, R. A. Nordstedt2

Thank you for sharing this valuable part of your Church's Tradition!
I have long seen the connection between this topic and your church but
have been too polite to point it out!

Learner

[Barnabas]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<CGK8d.97437$nA6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> learner wrote:
>
> [snip two-year old harangue - let us know when you learn a new harangue]
>
> This is what you really need to fix your problems.
>

>snipped manure article, but did save it for future reference this
coming spring. Thanks Joe!)

Joe,

I appreciate your work here in regards to our misnamed Learner.

You must appreciate by now that Learner's epistemology is completely
affected by the so-called Enlightenment. He is convinced that his
intellect is the final arbiter of truth, therefore there is no getting
around this flaw in his reasoning. He is the center of his
intellectual universe and is his own pope. His reasoning is,
therefore, self authenticating and infallible.

This type of reasoning is theologically based in the theological child
of the Enlightenment - Protestantism, and this theological reasoning
has produced atheism in our day. This theological reasoning has made
God out to be a terrorist with His "Sinners in the hands of an angry
God" image.

Learner has left the faith of his youth based on his own
interpretation of the theological, historical, and philosophical data.
His reasoning allows no alternative interpretations, and he cannot
allow that any such alternatives exist. To do so would place his
entire theological worldview in jeaopardy.

In the end, there is no fruit in spending time attempting to reason
with Learner. He is incapable of doing so. Not because he doesn't
possess the intellect. To be sure, he is obviously well read, and has
invested a good bit of time pondering and researching these topics.

His flaw, and his ultimately fatal weakness is his rejection of the
sovereignty of God. This is evidenced by his insistence that the
Church of the 4th century is so different from the miriade of
Christianities that existed in the "early Church" as to constitute a
different religion. He justifies rejecting the Church of his youth by
rationalizing that the Orthodox Church of today cannot be the
inheritor of the faith of that "early Church."

His choice in believing this is based on his own understanding of the
evidence he produces, or else he places his faith in scholars that
already affirm what he chooses to believe.

In any event, your attempts were laudible, and I commend you for your
efforts, but "Learner" is not open to any suggestions that his
conclusions may be flawed and no amount of evidence to the contrary
will ever be enough.

Thnak you again for your efforts.

[James]

learner wrote:

The only one missing the the connection is you. I've read your
uneducated posts and Joe's responses for a week now and it's apparent
that you we are simply wasting time ... casting our pearls before the
swine, as it were. So with this I PLONK you into cyber non-existance.
I've better things to occupy myself with than reading your fundie clap-trap.

[James]

Barnabas wrote:

I completely concur. Very well stated, Barnabas. As for me, I'm simply
plonking this character's posts from this point on. Like Green's and
Cobb's, they are a complete waste of my time and energy.

[learner]

"FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<J2C8d.9795$HO1.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>...

> FTT

And, now he cannot answer it!

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:
> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<9DK8d.97435$nA6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>>>Ha ha ha ha ha :-))))) You gotta be kidding. You read "dear friends"
>>>>and presume they were saved?
>
>
>
>
>>>Yes I do. Why else would Paul used the term agapetos?
>
>
>
>
>>+++
>>You obviously don't know what the word means, which is the adjective
>>form of the noun "agape." It literally translates to "beloved ones."
>
>
> I know exactly what it means as well as the context of this quote.

Obviously not, because you believe "beloved ones" equals "saved ones."
Also, as is typical of your tactics, you snipped the Romans passage
proving that reference to a loved one doesn't indicate that person has
been saved.

You obviously don't know what the word "agapetos" means, which is the

adjective form of the noun "agape." It literally translates to "beloved

ones." It has nothing to do with salvation. The word is also used in
Romans 5:8 ("But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while

we were still sinners, Christ died for us.") Read the Greek original as
well.

>>This clearly shows God loved us before Christ died for us, invalidating
>>any kind of assertion that this word has any kind of salvation connotation.
>
>
> You, and your Church, misses the connection between the obedience
> Jesus showed in Philippians 2:8 and the obedience Paul expects of the
> Philippians in 2:12. When Paul says, "work out your own salvation",
> we, unlike your idol the Orthodox Church, know that Paul does not mean
> "work so as to earn your own salvation". Such a statement would
> contradict the whole points of Paul's Epistles. Paul never told
> anyone to 'Work for your salvation', or 'Work on your salvation.' Paul
> said, 'Work out your salvation.'

You again display your dishonesty. No Orthodox ever quoted Paul as
saying, "work so as to earn your own salvation." Paul's admonition is
to "work out your salvation" indicates it is a lifelong process, which
poison to the ears of a twenty-second salvation Baptist, who can't make
sense of his doctrine without ignoring half of the NT, including Paul's
letters. Salvation IS work on our part, it's not a reward FOR work.

Enough with your sophistry.

>>This is what you really need to fix your problems...
>
>
>>Composting Horse Manure
>>by E. A. Ott, E. L. Johnson, R. A. Nordstedt2
>
>
> Thank you for sharing this valuable part of your Church's Tradition!
> I have long seen the connection between this topic and your church but
> have been too polite to point it out!
>
> Learner

Nah, it was a little bit of advice from Uncle Joe what you can do to get
rid of that heavy load you're carrying around on your shoulder That

[Joe Orthodox]

In general, I agree with you and James. However, I think having this
kind of debate about once a year does some good on my part, as I'm able
to sharpen my tools and organize my notes more effectively. I've seen
these troll types over in Beliefnet, as James has witnessed as well.
They lead off with the talking points, full of out-of-context Scriptural
passages, handed off from their fundie club or fundie website. You
answer the questions in a manner adequate for sober minds, and they come
back whining that no one answers their questions. This trollish
behavior usually guarantees a banning on any moderated board.

Anyway, I'm at the point where all I have to do is quickly cut-n-paste
Learner's contraditions with himself, and my previous answers, as he
doesn't offer anything new. Let him fritter away his time in his own
childishness, and I'll occasionally continue exposing it for what it is.

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<dqK8d.97434$nA6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> +++
> No, you're not. You ignore the Lord's words. He tells you to bring the
> infants to Him.

Yes, but Jesus did not baptize the children - he blessed them. There
is nothing which indicates that laying His hands on them was some sort
of a religious ceremony. Also, Jesus taught that the reason 'the
kingdom of God belongs to such' was not becuase they were baptized,
but because they were teachable and trusting. Once again, your
cut-and-paste polemic falls down!

> He tells you to obey the Church He established in
> Matthew 18:17 - "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church.
> But if he refuses even to hear the Church, let him be to you like a
> heathen and a tax collector."

> > Please answer one question! Your twisting of Scripture and reason

> > makes even less sense and shows how far Orthodoxy has wandered from
> > Christian teachings. It also shows how far Orthodox, such as you,
> > will go to defend the ideas of their idol - the Orthodox Church.

> +++
> There was a question in that harangue?

Yes, but you snipped it out.

> Christ tells you to obey the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he
> refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to
> hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

But you claimed that your Church was born on Pentacost! So which
Church are we talking about?

> You ignore Scripture, you disobey the Lord. Your religious club is a
> fraud of dangerous proportions, deceiving people that their salvation is
> gained once and for all by a simple twenty second prayer, and that their
> children shouldn't be baptised, in direct contradiction to the Lord's
> demand that infants be brought to Him.

Once again, Jesus did not baptize the children - he blessed them.
There is nothing which indicates that laying His hands on them was
some sort of a religious ceremony. Also, Jesus taught that the reason
'the kingdom of God belongs to such' was not becuase they were
baptized, but because they were teachable and trusting.

> +++
> >>You reject Christ by calling His Church an idol. He orders you to
> >>listen to the Church in Matthew 18:17 - "And if he refuses to hear them,
> >>tell it to the Church. But if he refuses even to hear the Church, let
> >>him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

No, I accept Christ and reject the Orthodox Church.

> > I do not reject Christ at all, I reject the claim that the Orthodox
> > Church is His one and only true Church. To do so is, in my heart and
> > mind, a grave insult to the Lord.

> +++
> Your delusions in your heart and mind are your problem.
> +++

As are yours.

> +++
> How do you know what all Orthodox do?
> +++

A number of my families members have divorced and re-married in the
Orthodox Church, and I know what they did.

> >>Mark 10:11-12 doesn't forbid divorce.
> >
> >
> > I wasn't talking about divorce. As usual, you attempt to answer an
> > unasked question. I was talking about re-marriage - which your Church
> > allows.
>
> +++
> Yes, you were. Again, you show your dishonesty, clipping your comments
> about divorce, then saying you weren't talking about divorce. Here is
> what you posted DIRECTLY before my post and my comments about Mark 10:
>
> Learner's quote: "But then again, since you want to shift to this
> subject, Jesus spoke out against divorce and re-marriage [Mark 10:12]."
>
> Enough of your dishonesty, O' Perpetual Learner.
> +++

You are the dishonest one! But, I guess that "confession" will take
care of that. I was talking about re-marriage, which your idol the
Orthodox Church allows for a maximum three times.

I rejoice that I left your Church whenever I read such people such as
yourself resorting to dishonesty, in her service.

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<dqK8d.97434$nA6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> +++
> Apostolic authority:
> Luke 10:16
> Luke 9:1; 10:19
> Luke 22:29
> Matt. 10:1,40
> Matt. 16:19; 18:18
> John 13:20
> John 17:18; 20:21
> 2 Peter 2:10

The Apostles had authority, no argument there. However, where do
these passages mention Apostolic succession?

> Apostolic succession:

> Acts 1:15-26

This says nothing about Apostolic succession. It discusses the
incorrect selection of Matthias as an Apostle. God's candidate for
the job was really Paul. After all, we never hear of Matthias again in
Scriptures and Paul went on to write much of the New Testament! Also,
Acts 15:29 prohibited Gentiles from eating meat sacrificed to Pagan
idols. But, Paul had to countermand the Council's decree in 1
Corinthians 8:7-8!

Bad example Joey.

> Acts 6:6

"They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their
hands on them."

The Apostles did not name these men as Apostolic successors, so this
passage doesn't work.

> Acts 8:17;

"Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the
Holy Spirit."

The Apostles did not name "them" as Apostolic successors, so this
passage doesn't work.

19:6

"When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and
they spoke in tongues and prophesied."

Paul did not name "them" as Apostolic successors, so this passage
doesn't work. Also, have do Orthodox Catholics speak in tongues and
prophesy? Why not?

> Acts 9:17-19 (Note that Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only
> becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a
> proof for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a
> legitimate successor of the apostles.)

"Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on
Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on
the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see
again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something like
scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and
was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength."

Nothing here about Apostolic succession. If your Bishop laid hands on
me, would I have the same reaction? See how silly your argument, or
more accurately the person you cut-and-pasted this from, really is?

> Acts 14:23

"Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with
prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put
their trust.

Nowhere does this say that the elders were successor of the Apostles.

> 2 Cor. 1:21-22

"Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He
anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in
our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

OK, so God anointed them. But where did God say that they could name
successors?

> 1 Tim. 4:14

"Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic
message when the body of elders laid their hands on you."

This passage does not say that this made these men successors to the
Apostles. By the way, does your Bishop have the gift of prophecy?

> 1 Tim. 5:22

"Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the
sins of others. Keep yourself pure."

Nowherer does this passage say or imply that Apostolic successors are
created by the laying on of hands.

> 2 Tim. 1:6

"For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which
is in you through the laying on of my hands."

The gift is faith, not Apostolic succession.

> 2 Tim. 4:1-6 (Note the line: "For the time will come when they will not
> endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they
> have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers")

That time came long ago for your Church! Where does this passage
mention Apostolic succession?

> 2 Tim. 2:2

"And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many
witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach
others."

OK, we are talking about teachers. Where does this passage mention
Apostolic succession?

> Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1

"The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what
was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed
you."

Where does this passage mention Apostolic succession?

And if we continue this passage, we find how far your Church has
wandered from Paul's teachings:

"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose
children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and
disobedient."

How many children does your Bishop have?

> 1 John 4:6

"We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is
not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the
Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."

Where does this passage mention Apostolic succession?

> Acts 5:13

"No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by
the people."

Where does this passage mention Apostolic succession?

> Evidence that apostolic succession was continuing tradition from the OT:

I have to show this to my Jewish classmates, they could use a good
laugh!

> Exodus 40:15

Talks about Jewish Priests. Are we still bound by Jewish Law? Only
if it serves your idol, the Orthodox Church.

> Numbers 3:3

"Those were the names of Aaron's sons, the anointed priests, who were
ordained to serve as priests."

So is your Bishop in the Aaronic lineage?

> Numbers 16:40

"as the LORD directed him through Moses. This was to remind the
Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to
burn incense before the LORD , or he would become like Korah and his
followers."

So is your Bishop in the Aaronic lineage?

> Numbers 27:18-20

"So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is
the spirit, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar
the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their
presence."

So Joshua was commissioned. How does this relate to Apostolic
succession? Nowhere does it say that he could do the same down
through history. No Jew interprets this passage in such a way.

> Deut. 34:9

"Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because
Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and
did what the LORD had commanded Moses."

Same as above, Joshua was not given some power to pass this down.

> +++
> The office of deaconess may very well return as it's perfectly
> canonical. The office simply fell into disuse. That's not the same as
> being abolished.
> +++

Do you imagine that your Church would ever accept a female Deacon
today?

> > The word for "overseers" here is "episkopos," which later became
> > "bishop." Clement's statement is found in a etter of rebuke for which
> > some authority was needed. That authority was found in the myth that
> > authority came down through the years from Jesus through the Apostles.
>
> +++
> St. Clement's Letter to the Corinthians was written in 80 A.D., which
> was BEFORE many books of the NT was written.

So what does that mean? Does the date imply the purety of this
doctrine? There were a number of heresies in Christianity at this
time.

> Funny how the great
> Perpetual Learner single-handedly dismisses a doctrine as "myth" when it
> suits his purposes, something truly learned Protestant do not do. (I'm
> just waiting for you to dismiss half of the NT as myth, especially those
> parts that tell you to obey the Church of the Apostles and whatever else
> doesn't jive with your looney beliefs.)
> +++

It is a myth. As seen from your lame attempts to read into the Bible
what is not there, the was no concept of Apostolic succession even
among the Apostles!

> # St. Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians. c. 80 A.D. ? 42, 1

> (20). Discusses how the apostles tested men to become bishops and
> deacons. Also argues that this is not a new teaching.

This discusses the test for these offices, it says nothing of
Apostolic succession.

> # St. Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians. c. 80 A.D. ? 44, 1

> (21). A complete argument showing the necessity of apostolic succession
> (note: this is before many books of the Bible were written).

I have already discussed this. Clement created this myth.

> # St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Trallians. c. 110 A.D. ? 2, 1
> (48). We must ?submit to the bishop as [we] would to Jesus Christ.?

Ignatius said that we should submit to the Bishop but says nothing of
Apostolic succession.

> # St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Trallians. c. 110 A.D. ? 3, 1
> (49). The bishop is a ?type of the Father.? This also clearly defines

> the separate roles within the Church.

Ignatius was talking about roles of the clergy, but says nothing of
Apostolic succession.

> # St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans. c. 110 A.D. ? 8, 1
> (65). Whatever the bishop does is ?secure and valid? ? we should follow
> the bishops as Christ follows the Father. Uses the word ?Eucharist.?

Once again, this says nothing of Apostolic succession.

> # St. Hegesippus Fragment in Eusebius? History of the Church. c. 180
> A.D. ? 4, 22, 1 (188). Historical recording of the succession of bishops.

Now we are into late second century Christianity. By this time,
Christianity was organized into a hierarchy unlike the simpler
arrangement found in the
Didache.

> # St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. ? 3, 3, 1 (209).

> Describes apostolic succession and how teachings were handed down from

> the apostles....

The next step in the evolution of the myth of Apostolicity is found in
the writings of Ignatius. Also, remember that by the time of
Ignatius, the first round of post-Jesus primitive Christianity had
long been over. Ignatius was a key player in the rise of
monoepiscopacy. The institution of the Church froze into an
organizational structure that was to transform Christianity into
something totally unknown to earlier Christians.

Learner

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<EFq7d.80317$6h7....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> I've corrected you on this before. Purgatory isn't a mandatory doctrine
> for Catholics. IOW, a Catholic can reject it and be a good Catholic.

You know about as much concerning the Catholic faith as you do about
Orthodoxy.

The decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV) defined:

"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from
the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught
in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap.
XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the
souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but
principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod
enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound
doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere
taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful"

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us:

"For unrepented venial faults for the payment of temporal punishment
due to sin at time of death, the Church has always taught the doctrine
of purgatory."

How will you dodge this one Joe? How about your "once saved always
saved" rap? I am amazed that you have not trotted out the "mother of
all Orthodox arguments" - the 22 million denominations of
Protestantism!

Learner

[craig]

"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...

I have just had a chance to read through some of this thread and I can't
help but to notice how many times you have mentioned the "once saved/always
saved" doctrine, even when it was completely off subject. Why?

As far as a simple twenty second prayer, I personally have not met any
credible, scholarly Protestant who would argue that salvation is gained by
saying a twenty second prayer. I think they would argue that a man is
justified before God when he freely chooses to trust in the finished work of
Christ. Its all about what is in a man's heart and has nothing to do with
the prayer. Protestants don't believe in magic words as do the Orthodox.

[Leonidas]

"craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:vd09d.5193$ol5....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...

[del]

> I have just had a chance to read through some of this thread and I can't
> help but to notice how many times you have mentioned the "once
> saved/always saved" doctrine, even when it was completely off subject.
> Why?
>
> As far as a simple twenty second prayer, I personally have not met any
> credible, scholarly Protestant who would argue that salvation is gained by
> saying a twenty second prayer. I think they would argue that a man is
> justified before God when he freely chooses to trust in the finished work
> of Christ. Its all about what is in a man's heart and has nothing to do
> with the prayer.

But things get all circular when one asks how one *knows* that one's heart
is in a right relationship with God?

> Protestants don't believe in magic words as do the Orthodox.

So you are convinced, Craig, that there are "credible, schorlarly" Orthodox
who believe in "magic words"?

[del]

[Al]

***Joe, this Baptist distortion is hardly worth arguing over. The Baptist
belief system is far out in left field and over the edge.

Al

"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...

[Al]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm

St. Matthias
Apostle.

The Greek Matthias (or, in some manuscripts, Maththias), is a name derived
from Mattathias, Heb. Mattithiah, signifying "gift of Yahweh." Matthias was
one of the seventy disciples of Jesus, and had been with Him from His
baptism by John to the Ascension (Acts i, 21, 22). It is related (Acts, i,
15-26) that in the days following the Ascension, Peter proposed to the
assembled brethren, who numbered one hundred and twenty, that they choose
one to fill the place of the traitor Judas in the Apostolate. Two disciples,
Joseph, called Barsabas, and Matthias were selected, and lots were drawn,
with the result in favour of Matthias, who thus became associated with the
eleven Apostles. Zeller has declared this narrative unhistoric, on the plea
that the Apostles were in Galilee after the death of Jesus. As a matter of
fact they did return to Galilee, but the Acts of the Apostles clearly state
that about the feast of Pentecost they went back to Jerusalem.

All further information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague
and contradictory. According to Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., 2, 40), he first
preached the Gospel in Judea, then in Ethiopia (that is to say, Colchis) and
was crucified. The Synopsis of Dorotheus contains this tradition: Matthias
in interiore AEthiopia, ubi Hyssus maris portus et Phasis fluvius est,
hominibus barbaris et carnivoris praedicavit Evangelium. Mortuus est autem
in Sebastopoli, ibique prope templum Solis sepultus (Matthias preached the
Gospel to barbarians and cannibals in the interior of Ethiopia, at the
harbour of the sea of Hyssus, at the mouth of the river Phasis. He died at
Sebastopolis, and was buried there, near the Temple of the Sun). Still
another tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the
Jews, and then beheaded (cf. Tillemont, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire
eccl. des six premiers siècles", I, 406-7). It is said that St. Helena
brought the relics of St. Matthias to Rome, and that a portion of them was
at Trier. Bollandus (Acta SS., May, III) doubts if the relics that are in
Rome are not rather those of the St. Matthias who was Bishop of Jerusalem
about the year 120, and whose history would seem to have been confounded
with that of the Apostle. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St.
Matthias on 24 February and the Greek Church on 9 August. [Note: After this
article was written, the Latin Church moved the feast of St. Matthias to 14
May.]

Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, 4) records a sentence that the
Nicolaitans ascribe to Matthias: "we must combat our flesh, set no value
upon it, and concede to it nothing that can flatter it, but rather increase
the growth of our soul by faith and knowledge". This teaching was probably
found in the Gospel of Matthias which was mentioned by Origen (Hom. i in
Lucam); by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 25), who attributes it to heretics;
by St. Jerome (Praef. in Matth.), and in the Decree of Gelasius (VI, 8)
which declares it apocryphal. It is at the end of the list of the Codex
Barrocciamus (206). This Gospel is probably the document whence Clement of
Alexandria quoted several passages, saying that they were borrowed from the
traditions of Matthias, Paradoseis, the testimony of which he claimed to
have been invoked by the heretics Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides
(Strom., VII, 17). According to the Philosophoumena, VII, 20, Basilides
quoted apocryphal discourses, which he attributed to Matthias. These three
writings: the gospel, the Traditions, and the Apocryphal Discourses were
identified by Zahn (Gesch. des N. T. Kanon, II, 751), but Harnack (Chron.
der altchrist. Litteratur, 597) denies this identification. Tischendorf
("Acta apostolorum apocrypha", Leipzig, l85I) published after Thilo, 1846,
"Acta Andreae et Matthiae in urbe anthropophagarum ", which, according to
Lipsius, belonged to the middle of the second century. This apocrypha
relates that Matthias went among the cannibals and, being cast into prison,
was delivered by Andrew. Needless to say, the entire narrative is without
historical value. Moreover, it should be remembered that, in the apocryphal
writings, Matthew and Matthias have sometimes been confounded.

[Al]

"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...
> "FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<J2C8d.9795$HO1.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "Al" <aggr...@SPAMechoes.net> wrote in message
> > news:cju5o...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > "learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...
> > >> "Al" <aggr...@SPAMechoes.net> wrote in message
> > news:<cjsql...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> > >> > "learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:c53bb03c.04100...@posting.google.com...
> > >> >
> > >> > > I don't need the Nicene Creed.
> > >> >
> > >> > ***Then you don't have the True Statement of the True Faith. That's
it.
> > >> > Plain and simple.
> > >>
> > >> So Alfred, there were no Christians prior to the penning of the
Nicene
> > > Creed?
> > >
> > >
> > > ***Don't go there. Your stupidity is showing.
> > >
> > Well Al, you opened the question.
>
> > FTT
>
> And, now he cannot answer it!
>
> Learner

***With you, nothing is worth answering because you are a Baptist troll, an
Orthodox heretic whose soul is lost.

[FTT]

"Al" <aggr...@SPAMechoes.net> wrote in message

news:ck25s...@enews3.newsguy.com...

And you are God, Al, to make such a pronouncement on Learner - or anyone,
even Nick.

If I were you I'd be afraid to sleep tonight lest I die and have to face my
Maker.
FTT

[Al]

"FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:Dq19d.18360$HO1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...

***There are many in Orthodoxy who believe that leaving the True Church,
Christ's Holy Body, is a repudiation of Christ, an act that leads to one's
losing his/her soul.

>
> If I were you I'd be afraid to sleep tonight lest I die and have to face
my
> Maker.

***I look forward to this event when it happens.

[James]

FTT wrote:

I wished I hadn't read this. I've long since plonked Al but I sometimes
stumble upon his posts through others. Fr Fred, we need to pray for Al.
When I read his words to Learner (and my own have not been very kind but
I would never presume to condemn him) I was astonished at how far he has
fallen in the year (or is it now two?) since I last posted here. Let us
pray for this man. He seems to be consumed with anger.

[craig]

"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:DmW8d.63426$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

Yes, and Christ explained exactly what this work consists of:

John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may
work the works of God?" (29) Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the
work of God, that you participate in a lifelong process of religious works,
beginning with water baptism."

Christ helped to clarify this point further when he responded to the request
of a young man who was being executed:

Luke 23:42-43 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your
kingdom!" (43) And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, it is not possible
for God to accept you on the basis of a laughable twenty-second request such
as yours. A lifetime process is what God requires. I am sorry."

If there is still any doubt, Christ REALLY drove the point home here:

Luke 15:21-24 "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against
heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' (22)
"But the father said to his slaves, 'Go and tell my son that he must begin a
lifelong process in which he will make himself worthy of my acceptance. Do
not yet kill the fattened calf. Do not yet bring out the fine robes and the
sandals. Do not yet place a ring on his finger. I cannot yet accept my son
back until he has proved that his faith, infused with good works, is true.

How could Learner not see this????

[FTT]

Spoken like a true prot fundy.Are you sure Al that you are Orthodox?
What about the often bandied about Orthodox saying "we know where Christ
is, but we don't know where He is NOT".

Yet, being in "the True Church, Christ's Holy Body", as you say, is no
guarantee that your actions - on this and other newsgroups -is not in
itself "a repudiation of Christ, an act that leads to one's losing
his/her soul". once again to use your own words. Our Blessed Lord said,
not everyone who cries ....... "will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Isn't
there a song stating "they will know we are Christian by our love..." Oh
ya it's an old "protty" hymn - but none the less twells the TRUTH

Once again Al, you sound like onced saved, always saved Prot.
As I say all extremes meet at a common point.

FTT

FTT

[craig]

"Leonidas" <orthodoxt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ck24fq$d6a$1...@news.vanderbilt.edu...

>
> "craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:vd09d.5193$ol5....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
> [del]
>
>> I have just had a chance to read through some of this thread and I can't
>> help but to notice how many times you have mentioned the "once
>> saved/always saved" doctrine, even when it was completely off subject.
>> Why?
>>
>> As far as a simple twenty second prayer, I personally have not met any
>> credible, scholarly Protestant who would argue that salvation is gained
>> by saying a twenty second prayer. I think they would argue that a man is
>> justified before God when he freely chooses to trust in the finished work
>> of Christ. Its all about what is in a man's heart and has nothing to do
>> with the prayer.
>
> But things get all circular when one asks how one *knows* that one's heart
> is in a right relationship with God?

The Apostle John seems to think that we can know such things:

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of
the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

>
>> Protestants don't believe in magic words as do the Orthodox.
>
> So you are convinced, Craig, that there are "credible, schorlarly"
> Orthodox who believe in "magic words"?

The concept of liturgy comes very close to what I would consider magic
words. We open a book that contains a prescribed set of words. By reciting
these particular words, in the proper language, by the proper people, while
wearing the proper vestments, in the proper order, we invoke the Holy Spirit
to descend and change the substance of the bread and wine.

We take the model that Christ gave us for prayer in Matthew 6, directly
after he instructed us not to pray by meaningless repetition, and we lift
his words directly off the page and recite them directly, repeatedly, as
though there is something significant about the words themselves.....that
God is pleased by these particular words.

The implication is that the recitation of a particular set of words invokes
a desired response in the spiritual realm. That is the very definition of
magic words. To a much lesser extent, I also see this at times by
Protestants, such as when they repeatedly follow up their prayers with "in
Christ's name."

[FTT]

"James" <leushin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10m9drl...@corp.supernews.com...
> FTT wrote:
>

>>
> I wished I hadn't read this. I've long since plonked Al but I sometimes
> stumble upon his posts through others. Fr Fred, we need to pray for Al.
> When I read his words to Learner (and my own have not been very kind but I
> would never presume to condemn him) I was astonished at how far he has
> fallen in the year (or is it now two?) since I last posted here. Let us
> pray for this man. He seems to be consumed with anger.

Dear James

It's good to hear from you in your reply to my post to Al.
It's been a long time since you have posted here.

It would be nice if you sent me a private email for old times sake.
God bless

Fr. Fred (FTT)
Anglican Priest
Montreal, Quebec
Canada

[Leonidas]

"craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:ov39d.239835$787....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

[del]

>> But things get all circular when one asks how one *knows* that one's
>> heart is in a right relationship with God?
>
> The Apostle John seems to think that we can know such things:

"Seems to think," doesn't sound all that confident on your part...

> 1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of
> the Son of God,

In the "name of the Son of God" sounds a little formulaic and "magic words,"
no?

> so that you may know that you have eternal life.

"So that you *may* know" does not mean that they really did know. Can you
really, really EVER be certain that you know, Craig? Luther was driven by
the angst of uncertainty, no doubt, but Protestantism soon found it wasn't
actually solving the problem.

>>> Protestants don't believe in magic words as do the Orthodox.
>>
>> So you are convinced, Craig, that there are "credible, schorlarly"
>> Orthodox who believe in "magic words"?
>
> The concept of liturgy comes very close to what I would consider magic
> words. We open a book that contains a prescribed set of words. By
> reciting these particular words, in the proper language, by the proper
> people, while wearing the proper vestments, in the proper order, we invoke
> the Holy Spirit to descend and change the substance of the bread and wine.
>
> We take the model that Christ gave us for prayer in Matthew 6, directly
> after he instructed us not to pray by meaningless repetition, and we lift
> his words directly off the page and recite them directly, repeatedly, as
> though there is something significant about the words themselves.....that
> God is pleased by these particular words.
>
> The implication is that the recitation of a particular set of words
> invokes a desired response in the spiritual realm. That is the very
> definition of magic words. To a much lesser extent, I also see this at
> times by Protestants, such as when they repeatedly follow up their prayers
> with "in Christ's name."

Craig, if what you describe above are "magic words," then it's all "magic
words." By Christ telling us "do this in remebrance of me," or "where two
or three are gathered," or "in my name," or "Pray in this way: 'Our
Father...'" we fall into this "magic words" phenomenon you describe. The
Quakers solve this dilemma by going to the Meeting House, everybody just
keeping silent, and talking only if they're absolutely moved to do so.
Perhaps there's something to be said for it, but things like doctrine and
Scripture are rendered pretty toothless in such a setting.

[Al]

"James" <leushin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10m9drl...@corp.supernews.com...

***I often am...at Baptist trolls whose job it is is to demean Holy
Orthodoxy. I imagine my priest is tired of hearing my confessions!

[Al]

***I'll agree with what you have written. (Thrice Holy <G><G><G>)

***I wonder if Nick Kobbs will read this? It seems to apply to him, too.

Al

"FTT" <f...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:IX29d.20021$HO1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...

[learner]

"craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<vd09d.5193$ol5....@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...

> >> You ignore Scripture, you disobey the Lord. Your religious club is a
> >> fraud of dangerous proportions, deceiving people that their salvation is
> >> gained once and for all by a simple twenty second prayer, and that their
> >> children shouldn't be baptised, in direct contradiction to the Lord's
> >> demand that infants be brought to Him.
> >
>
> I have just had a chance to read through some of this thread and I can't
> help but to notice how many times you have mentioned the "once saved/always
> saved" doctrine, even when it was completely off subject. Why?

The self proclaimed Orthodox "big gun" Joe repeats this, over and
over, because it is all that he has. He is unable to answer anything
on his own, so he cuts and pastes polemics from various Orthodox
websites - sometime these cut-and-pastes are related to the question,
but usually, they are not.

Joe's "once saved/always saved" rap, whether anyone has ever even
raised the issue, is a lot like Al's 22,000 Protestant denominations
argument - it is a way to dodge questions that he cannot answer.

> As far as a simple twenty second prayer, I personally have not met any
> credible, scholarly Protestant who would argue that salvation is gained by
> saying a twenty second prayer. I think they would argue that a man is
> justified before God when he freely chooses to trust in the finished work of
> Christ. Its all about what is in a man's heart and has nothing to do with
> the prayer. Protestants don't believe in magic words as do the Orthodox.

I agree.

Paul defined of salvation as consisting of three aspects :
Justification, Sanctification, and then Glorification. Salvation
occurs at the time of Justification, and it is through faith.

The Orthodox disagree with Paul and begin with Baptism, then through a
process of Deification [similar to the Protestant concept of
Sanctification], and then to Glorification. In Orthodoxy, salvation
occurs at the time of Glorification -or at the end of a process, which
could even occur after death.

But even if we agree with the Orthodox premise, and begin with
baptism, the Bible tells us that 'hearing the word,' 'embracing the
word heartily' and 'repenting' precedes baptism (Acts 2:14, 22, 38,
41). This presents a huge problem for both the idea of infant baptism
as well as for the idea of baptismal regeneration.

Learner

As a footnote, I brought up the issue of the thief on the cross who
repented and was promised paradise. Our "big gun" Joe replied that
Jesus didn't make "housecalls", yet he did not answer the question as
to why this man's prayer is repeated prior to Communion. I never got
an answer. I wonder why?

[learner]

"craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<GO29d.239076$787.1...@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...

> > You again display your dishonesty. No Orthodox ever quoted Paul as
> > saying, "work so as to earn your own salvation." Paul's admonition is to
> > "work out your salvation" indicates it is a lifelong process, which poison
> > to the ears of a twenty-second salvation Baptist, who can't make sense of
> > his doctrine without ignoring half of the NT, including Paul's letters.
> > Salvation IS work on our part, it's not a reward FOR work.

The funny thing Craig, is that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a
Baptist! But, when you have a cut-and-paste polemic, you simply must
stick with it. I find it amusing how some [by most certainly not all]
Orthodox must lash out at other beliefs when their beliefs are
challenged. It would be much better if they thought about and studied
their own faith first, and attempted to provide answers.

> Yes, and Christ explained exactly what this work consists of:
>
> John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may
> work the works of God?" (29) Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the
> work of God, that you participate in a lifelong process of religious works,
> beginning with water baptism."
>
> Christ helped to clarify this point further when he responded to the request
> of a young man who was being executed:
>
> Luke 23:42-43 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your
> kingdom!" (43) And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, it is not possible
> for God to accept you on the basis of a laughable twenty-second request such
> as yours. A lifetime process is what God requires. I am sorry."
>
> If there is still any doubt, Christ REALLY drove the point home here:
>
> Luke 15:21-24 "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against
> heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' (22)
> "But the father said to his slaves, 'Go and tell my son that he must begin a
> lifelong process in which he will make himself worthy of my acceptance. Do
> not yet kill the fattened calf. Do not yet bring out the fine robes and the
> sandals. Do not yet place a ring on his finger. I cannot yet accept my son
> back until he has proved that his faith, infused with good works, is true.

> How could Learner not see this????

Good one! Perhaps Joe should begin an effort to re-write the Bible!

Learner

[learner]

"Leonidas" <orthodoxt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ck2k2m$f5q$1...@news.vanderbilt.edu>...

Greetings Leonidas, I am glad that one the more intelligent and
thoughtful Orthodox Catholics have entered this discussion.

I, for a few months, have been thinking over the idea that the
Orthodox Liturgy verges on being a talisman - in some respects. So
this turn in the discussion is interesting, at least to me.

> Craig, if what you describe above are "magic words," then it's all "magic

> words." By Christ telling us "do this in remebrance of me," ....

Now to the question.

At what precise moment in the Liturgy does the "Eucharistic change"
takes place?

My problem centers around the Epiklesis - which is found nowhere in
the Bible. My only conclusion is that the Priest's "institution" of
the Holy Sacrifice - when he says "This is my Body," and "This is my
Blood" - is either nonessential or inadequate, since another prayer
[the Epiklesis] is necessary.

So, it appears that it is the Epiklesis which is the "talisman" which
causes the "Eucharistic change".

I am not attempting to provoke a debate on the subject, but I am
curious about your position on the subject.

Learner

[learner]

evan...@comcast.net (Barnabas) wrote in message news:<f3325864.0410...@posting.google.com>...

> You must appreciate by now that Learner's epistemology is completely
> affected by the so-called Enlightenment.

Is that a bad thing? We are having this conversation on the internet
thanks, in part, to the "so-called Enlightenment" which promoted
science and technology over theocracy and superstition.

> He is convinced that his intellect is the final arbiter of truth, therefore

> there is no getting around this flaw in his reasoning.

Well Evan, or is it "Father Evan", keep your day job since you ain't
going to make it as a mind reader. Perhaps your are projecting your
view of your Church on my academic views. I never said, or implied,
that my intellect is the final arbiter of truth. I look at the
evidence and can change my opinions if the facts are convincing. I am
not stuck in a dogmatic mindset.

> He is the center of his intellectual universe and is his own pope.

We are all our own "Pope". As individuals, we make decisions based on
whatever criteria we value. Even the decision to have "blind faith"
is a decision based on some mental process.

> His reasoning is, therefore, self authenticating and infallible.

No, that is far closer to your Church's view of itself. The Church
believes that it created the Bible [thus giving it authority], while
the Bible is seen as giving authority to the Church. And around we go!

> This type of reasoning is theologically based in the theological child
> of the Enlightenment - Protestantism, and this theological reasoning
> has produced atheism in our day. This theological reasoning has made
> God out to be a terrorist with His "Sinners in the hands of an angry
> God" image.

Huh? Are you talking about something specific that I said, or are you
simply cutting and pasting polemics?

> Learner has left the faith of his youth based on his own
> interpretation of the theological, historical, and philosophical data.

Very true, and I am glad that I did.

> His reasoning allows no alternative interpretations, and he cannot
> allow that any such alternatives exist. To do so would place his
> entire theological worldview in jeaopardy.

There are plenty of alternative interpretations. I would accept any
of them if a compelling case, based on the facts, were made.

> In the end, there is no fruit in spending time attempting to reason
> with Learner.

Probably true.

> He is incapable of doing so.

I would look at this a different way. I am not interested in pious
myths - like St. George and his dragon and Luke painting an icon of
Mary, who he probably never met, and placing on the table of the last
supper, which he didn't attend.

I am interested in evidence. Time and time again in these discussions
it is obvious that many Orthodox beliefs cannot be supported by
textual or archeological evidence. Like it or not, these beliefs of
Orthodoxy are no more valid than any other form of unsupported belief.

Now, you do not "have" to prove your Church's beliefs. However,
anyone making unsupported statements should, at least, present them
with the proviso that they are merely "beliefs," not unquestionable
facts.

> Not because he doesn't possess the intellect. To be sure, he is obviously
> well read, and has invested a good bit of time pondering and researching
> these topics.

Thanks, I guess.

> His flaw, and his ultimately fatal weakness is his rejection of the
> sovereignty of God.

I rejected the Orthodox Church, not God.... unless you believe them to
be the one and same.

> This is evidenced by his insistence that the
> Church of the 4th century is so different from the miriade of
> Christianities that existed in the "early Church" as to constitute a
> different religion.

I never said that Orthodoxy is a different religion. What I am saying
is that, through the study of history, that the Orthodox Church is
very different from the Church of the first century. No scholar would
dispute this, but many Orthodox hold this idea as dogma.

> He justifies rejecting the Church of his youth by
> rationalizing that the Orthodox Church of today cannot be the
> inheritor of the faith of that "early Church."

I did not say that the Orthodox Church isn't the inheritor of the
faith of that "early Church." In fact, I have said on a number of
occassions that all Churches can trace at least some of their
doctrines back in time. However, there is no one "true Church" that
is the same as the one in the first century. Once the Church evolved
out of its early Semitic roots, it became something very different.

> His choice in believing this is based on his own understanding of the
> evidence he produces, or else he places his faith in scholars that
> already affirm what he chooses to believe.

Not at all. I have quoted more Orthodox scholars in my posts than
secular ones. I look at all sides of the issue.

> In any event, your attempts were laudible, and I commend you for your
> efforts, but "Learner" is not open to any suggestions that his
> conclusions may be flawed and no amount of evidence to the contrary
> will ever be enough.

I am open to any suggestions, even though I am not a Baptist and have
never argued for "once saved always saved". Well, with that in mind,
I'm off to 2nd Ave. for lunch. Maybe they will have "red herrings"!

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

craig wrote:

And like Lerner, you changed the subject from this passage and Lerner's
erroneous assertion that "dear friends" really meant "saved friend."

You again fail to understand what is meant by reference to "works",
"works of Law", and "working out your salvation", which Paul explicitly
says to do in Philippians. This is what happens when you create an
ahistorical theory, "once saved/always saved", which wasn't practiced or
believed by anyone until the Anabaptists came along (and is refuted by
learned non-Baptist Protestant scholars), and then you ignore half of
what is written in the NT and try to can one definition upon the word
"works."

Of course Lerner can't see this, because he's to busy snipping
Scripture, like he did with Philippians, and then goes on pretending it
doesn't say what it says.

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<kvW8d.63461$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> In general, I agree with you and James. However, I think having this
> kind of debate about once a year does some good on my part, as I'm able
> to sharpen my tools and organize my notes more effectively.

Well, if you ever find a Baptist who believes in "once saved always
saved", then your cut-and-paste polemics might work, or at least come
near to the topics being discussed.

> I've seen these troll types over in Beliefnet, as James has witnessed as
> well.

So all who question Orthodoxy are "Trolls"? This speaks volumes about
your faith!

> They lead off with the talking points, full of out-of-context Scriptural
> passages, handed off from their fundie club or fundie website. You
> answer the questions in a manner adequate for sober minds, and they come
> back whining that no one answers their questions. This trollish
> behavior usually guarantees a banning on any moderated board.

Well, rather than wallow in some fantasy of Orthodox "triumphalism", I
will leave it to those who read our discussion to decide who has
answered questions and who has dodged them.

If your arguments are so good, then why do they not convince those who
do not already subscribe to your dogma? Believe it or not, most
non-Orthodox are not bowled over by your Church's claims.

> Anyway, I'm at the point where all I have to do is quickly cut-n-paste
> Learner's contraditions with himself, and my previous answers, as he
> doesn't offer anything new. Let him fritter away his time in his own
> childishness, and I'll occasionally continue exposing it for what it is.

I think that this is a far better description of you behaviour. I
look forward to your "occasionally continue exposing" the Baptists and
"once saved, always saved" topics that were never raised.

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

learner wrote:

> "craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<GO29d.239076$787.1...@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
>
>
>>>You again display your dishonesty. No Orthodox ever quoted Paul as
>>>saying, "work so as to earn your own salvation." Paul's admonition is to
>>>"work out your salvation" indicates it is a lifelong process, which poison
>>>to the ears of a twenty-second salvation Baptist, who can't make sense of
>>>his doctrine without ignoring half of the NT, including Paul's letters.
>>>Salvation IS work on our part, it's not a reward FOR work.
>
>
> The funny thing Craig, is that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a
> Baptist! But, when you have a cut-and-paste polemic, you simply must

You are Baptist. Throwing out the "Nondenominational" smoke doesn't
fool anyone, especially when you've spent a huge amount of time in the
Baptist newsgroup. "Nondenominational" is an outgrowth of the Baptist
church. It shares the same theology. I'll continue calling a duck a duck.

> stick with it. I find it amusing how some [by most certainly not all]
> Orthodox must lash out at other beliefs when their beliefs are
> challenged. It would be much better if they thought about and studied
> their own faith first, and attempted to provide answers.

Again, you're being dishonest. You made a claim about "dear friends"
meaning "saved friends", and it was refuted. Now you once again whine
that you made a "challenge" which wasn't answered.

You offer deflections, fallacious statements, mindless harangues, and at
every corner after you've made an idiot of yourself you flip on the
broken troll record: "Nobody answers my questions!"

>>Yes, and Christ explained exactly what this work consists of:
>>
>>John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may
>>work the works of God?" (29) Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the
>>work of God, that you participate in a lifelong process of religious works,
>>beginning with water baptism."
>>
>>Christ helped to clarify this point further when he responded to the request
>>of a young man who was being executed:
>>
>>Luke 23:42-43 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your
>>kingdom!" (43) And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, it is not possible
>>for God to accept you on the basis of a laughable twenty-second request such
>>as yours. A lifetime process is what God requires. I am sorry."
>>
>>If there is still any doubt, Christ REALLY drove the point home here:
>>
>>Luke 15:21-24 "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against
>>heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' (22)
>>"But the father said to his slaves, 'Go and tell my son that he must begin a
>>lifelong process in which he will make himself worthy of my acceptance. Do
>>not yet kill the fattened calf. Do not yet bring out the fine robes and the
>>sandals. Do not yet place a ring on his finger. I cannot yet accept my son
>>back until he has proved that his faith, infused with good works, is true.
>
>
>
>>How could Learner not see this????
>
>
> Good one! Perhaps Joe should begin an effort to re-write the Bible!
>
> Learner

That would be you rewriting the Bible, seeing "saved ones" where it says
"dear friends", or adding the word "allein" in Romans in the German
translation, or claiming a prohibition against infant baptism which
isn't there or any historical documentation and was never believed by
anyone before uneducated Anabaptists arrived on the scene, or claiming a
mandate for bishops to be married which isn't there or any historical
documentation, while in turn your Church leaders break Scripture by
being married to more than one wife.

[Joe Orthodox]

craig wrote:

Off subject? LOL. If things get off subject it's because Lerner
deflects from one topic to the next whenever his bogus Scriptural
interpretation gets shot down, or his fallacious rant is exposed.

> As far as a simple twenty second prayer, I personally have not met any
> credible, scholarly Protestant who would argue that salvation is gained by
> saying a twenty second prayer. I think they would argue that a man is
> justified before God when he freely chooses to trust in the finished work of
> Christ. Its all about what is in a man's heart and has nothing to do with
> the prayer. Protestants don't believe in magic words as do the Orthodox.

You use the word "Protestants" here, and that's accurate. Lutherans,
Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. don't believe in this
dangerous doctrine. It is the Baptists and their Nondenominational
step-child who believe in this 20 second prayer thing that saves one
once and for all. Don't tell me otherwise, because I grew up in the
Bible belt and went though that prayer when I was 11 and after that all
these Baptists were coming up to me, "Congratulations! How does it feel
now that you are saved!" Everyone was doing this, pastors and laity.

[Joe Orthodox]

Leonidas wrote:

> "craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:vd09d.5193$ol5....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
> [del]
>
>
>>I have just had a chance to read through some of this thread and I can't
>>help but to notice how many times you have mentioned the "once
>>saved/always saved" doctrine, even when it was completely off subject.
>>Why?
>>
>>As far as a simple twenty second prayer, I personally have not met any
>>credible, scholarly Protestant who would argue that salvation is gained by
>>saying a twenty second prayer. I think they would argue that a man is
>>justified before God when he freely chooses to trust in the finished work
>>of Christ. Its all about what is in a man's heart and has nothing to do
>>with the prayer.
>
>
> But things get all circular when one asks how one *knows* that one's heart
> is in a right relationship with God?

And I raised this point with him before, which he ignored and deflected.

>>Protestants don't believe in magic words as do the Orthodox.
>
>
> So you are convinced, Craig, that there are "credible, schorlarly" Orthodox
> who believe in "magic words"?
>
> [del]

Make note of his word "Protestant", and not Baptist/Nondemoninational.

[learner]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<DmW8d.63426$B51....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

> >>You obviously don't know what the word means, which is the adjective
> >>form of the noun "agape." It literally translates to "beloved ones."

> > I know exactly what it means as well as the context of this quote.

> Obviously not, because you believe "beloved ones" equals "saved ones."

I did not say that it "equals" anything. In the context of this
passage, these people were saved because Paul said: "for it is God who
is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good
pleasure". Could these people have God at work in them to do work for
His good pleasure, and not be saved.

Once again, you address a question, but not the one at hand.

> Also, as is typical of your tactics, you snipped the Romans passage
> proving that reference to a loved one doesn't indicate that person has
> been saved.

Because it was not relevant to the discussion at hand. Context is
everything.

> You obviously don't know what the word "agapetos" means, which is the
> adjective form of the noun "agape." It literally translates to "beloved
> ones." It has nothing to do with salvation. The word is also used in
> Romans 5:8 ("But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while
> we were still sinners, Christ died for us.") Read the Greek original as
> well.

This is a different context. Also, based on the Joe Orthodox
"exegesis" are sinners not saved by God's love? Before you go off on
your usual tanget, you might want to note that Romans does not talk
about "our love to God,"; but of "God's love to us".

> >>This clearly shows God loved us before Christ died for us, invalidating
> >>any kind of assertion that this word has any kind of salvation connotation.

So God's love has nothing to do with salvation? Interesting.....

> > You, and your Church, misses the connection between the obedience
> > Jesus showed in Philippians 2:8 and the obedience Paul expects of the
> > Philippians in 2:12. When Paul says, "work out your own salvation",
> > we, unlike your idol the Orthodox Church, know that Paul does not mean
> > "work so as to earn your own salvation". Such a statement would
> > contradict the whole points of Paul's Epistles. Paul never told
> > anyone to 'Work for your salvation', or 'Work on your salvation.' Paul
> > said, 'Work out your salvation.'

> You again display your dishonesty. No Orthodox ever quoted Paul as
> saying, "work so as to earn your own salvation." Paul's admonition is
> to "work out your salvation" indicates it is a lifelong process, which
> poison to the ears of a twenty-second salvation Baptist, who can't make
> sense of his doctrine without ignoring half of the NT, including Paul's
> letters. Salvation IS work on our part, it's not a reward FOR work.

Are you then suggesting that salvation in Orthodoxy is based on faith
alone?

> Enough with your sophistry.

And yours.

Learner

[craig]

"Leonidas" <orthodoxt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:ck2k2m$f5q$1...@news.vanderbilt.edu...

Your point is well taken, Leonidas. I do think that, to some extent, there
may be some truth to what you are saying. There are definitely times when
all of us may fall into this way of thinking, in which we feel that our
words or actions alone are enough to invoke a spiritual response.

At the same time, however, the Orthodox practice of Liturgy seems to
explicitly pursue this way of thinking. The words themselves, when chanted
by a priest, have the power to invoke the Holy Spirit to miraculously change
the substance of the bread and wine. That is exactly what most people would
consider magic words.

This way of thinking seems to permeate Orthodox practices. How about the
practice of crossing oneself at designated points in the Liturgy or while
reading Scripture. What is the purpose of this? Does it bring about a
desired response in the spiritual realm? What does it accomplish?

My real struggle with all of this is that it is inherently impersonal. We
are personal beings. We communicate with each other on a personal level in
which our words are driven by the content of our minds and hearts. Not the
other way around. None of us relate to each other by repetitious recitation
of words on a page. Yet when we approach the most personal being
imaginable, we resort to doing just this, as though God would find this
pleasing. Is God really moved when he hears a priest recite "Lord have
mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy" simply because its in the script??
That is machine-like and impersonal.

[James]

I'm flying out the door, Father. I'll certainly try to do this when I
return this evening. Nice to hear from you again.

[craig]

"Leonidas" <orthodoxt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:ck2k2m$f5q$1...@news.vanderbilt.edu...

> "craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:ov39d.239835$787....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> [del]
>
>>> But things get all circular when one asks how one *knows* that one's
>>> heart is in a right relationship with God?
>>
>> The Apostle John seems to think that we can know such things:
>
> "Seems to think," doesn't sound all that confident on your part...
>
>> 1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of
>> the Son of God,
>
> In the "name of the Son of God" sounds a little formulaic and "magic
> words," no?
>

I don't think so. He is simply communicating the object of our faith. If
we were to incorporate these words into a liturgical ritual in which they
are recited for the purpose of invoking a desired spiritual response, then,
yes, they would be magic words.

>> so that you may know that you have eternal life.
>
> "So that you *may* know" does not mean that they really did know. Can you
> really, really EVER be certain that you know, Craig? Luther was driven by
> the angst of uncertainty, no doubt, but Protestantism soon found it wasn't
> actually solving the problem.
>

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of
the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

The truth that John is communicating in this verse is that if you believe in
the one God has sent, you *have* eternal life. Whether or not you know this
does not change that fact. However, it is John's stated purpose in writing
is that we would come to know and believe this fact.

Now, can I know what I believe? Probably not completely. However, Paul
writes:

1 Corinthians 2:10-12 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for
the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (11) For who among
men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in
him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. (12)
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is
from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,

I have the experience if God's Spirit dwelling within me, confirming what I
believe and what God has feely given me, just as was promised in Eph
1:13-14:

Ephesians 1:13-14 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth,
the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him
with the Holy Spirit of promise, (14) who is given as a pledge of our
inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the
praise of His glory.