Orthodox Christianity and The "Branch Theory"

[AGGreen]

Orthodox Christianity and The "Branch Theory"
http://oca.org/QA.asp?ID=27&SID=3

QUESTION:

In an answer to the question "Is the Orthodox church anti-Roman Catholic"
you stated that: "We continue to pray for unity while, at the same time,
rejecting any notion that Orthodox Christianity is just one of many
'branches' or 'expressions' of Christianity. To believe this would be to
reject our understanding of Orthodoxy as the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic Church."

With all due respect, this strikes me as highly prideful. The apostles were
dispersed throughout the world, and those they taught to follow them were
dispersed yet further. Clusters of Christians organized churches where the
Holy Spirit led them, and according to their own character, the environment
and cultures in which they found themselves, etc. The tree of life indeed
has many branches, and the only trunk and root is Christ and Israel ("I am
the vine..."). That you should presume that Orthodox Christianity is the
trunk and not one of the oldest and thickest branches is an extremely
heretical position, as heretical as the Roman Catholic claim that Peter and
his successors are infallible. (Did not JESUS say to Peter, his rock: "Get
thee behind me satan" when the latter attempted to hold him back from His
passion?)

Indeed, the paradox which all Christians (including the Eastern rite branch)
must live with is that while Peter is indeed the rock on which God's church
is founded, he is also called 'satan' by his Master, and he denies Him three
times. This should be a comfort for our human frailty, fear and lack of
faith.

The certainty with which you express that Orthodox Christianity is the only
true catholic and apostolic church is no doubt based in the deeply felt
understanding that yours IS a true and living branch on the vine of Christ.
But dear friend, it is just another bitter branch grafted onto the rootstock
of sweet truth.

Doctrinal differences are caused by the persistence of human sin and error,
to which we are all subject as sinners. The truth cannot be expressed in
doctrine alone, because it is Jesus Christ who is the truth; the Gospels are
an expression of His truth and our interpretations are expressions of our
desire to understand His truth. But verily, the only Truth is to be found in
Himself, as the very Son of God.

I have nothing against special garments and titles, but I do have something
against those who do not perceive the vanity of such things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

ANSWER:

Thank you for your enquiry. Without wishing to enter into a lengthy debate,
I must say that I think you were reading a bit more into the answer than
what is there.

The statement to which you take exception is not a statement of pride; it is
a statement of fact that Orthodoxy indeed rejects the "branch theory," for
very good reason -- namely that not all who refer to themselves as
"Christian" possess the fullness of Christian truth. To say that "it's all
the same, there's only one Christ, there's a variety of different ways to
express our belief in Him," is to flatly ignore the history of Christianity,
specifically the first two Ecumenical Councils, which discerned once and for
all the truth concerning the person and mission, the humanity and divinity,
of Jesus Christ -- and which, incidentally, in no way subscribes to the
branch theory.

While I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement that "the truth
cannot be expressed in doctrine alone," it must be stated that not all
expressions of belief in Jesus Christ constitute the truth. There are some
Christians to this day who deny His divinity. There are others who deny His
humanity. And there are others who have distorted His teachings on
everything from fasting to the centrality of the Eucharist to the role of
His Mother in the life of the Church. To say that all of these are different
"expressions" of the same "truth" is a lie at worst, a distortion at best.
If Christ is both God and man, for example, one who would affirm that He is
only God or only human would not be proclaiming the same truth as one who
would affirm that Christ is both divine and human. Are we to affirm that
those who believe that Jesus is the manifestation or incarnation of the
Archangel Michael hold the same truth as those of us who believe that He is
the only-begotten Son of God Who took on the human nature without
relinquishing His divinity? Are we to see those who deny the presence of
Christ in the Eucharist as holding the same truth as those of us who believe
that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ? Are we to claim
that those who deny the ever-virginity of Mary hold the same truth as those
of us who believe that she was a virgin before, during, and after the
incarnation of Our Lord? These are hardly different " expressions" or
"nuances" of the same truth. And, as such, they are not seen by Orthodox
Christianity as being a part of the same trunk, founded upon the rock of
Peter's faith [and not on Peter himself, as Orthodox Christianity
understands the "upon this rock" passage], since the teachings of some
traditions are diametrically opposed to the fullness of truth as discerned
and defined by the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church, to which
Orthodox Christianity looks as definitive for all time, and not just for
"part" of the time.

Of course, as you rightly assert, Jesus Christ is the truth. Of course, the
Gospels are an expression of His truth, a revelation through the written
word of God of the Living Word of God Himself. And of course, the only truth
is to be found in Jesus Christ, the very Son of God. But are we to say that
those who do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God hold the same
teachings as we hold, or that those who reject certain teachings found in
Scripture or who reject the Holy Mysteries or who reject the ongoing
Tradition of the Church believe and hold the same truths as we believe and
hold? Are we to agree with those who insist that, in venerating icons, we
are "worshipping wood and paint and varnish," even though the seventh
ecumenical council in 787 AD affirmed that worship is accorded to God alone
and that the Church does not "worship" icons? Are we to imply that those who
insist that Mary had other children hold the same faith as those of us who
insist on her ever-virginity? Are we to accept that those who believe that
God is a single person with three "modes" or "expressions" known as "Father,
Son and Holy Spirit" believe the same as those of us who believe that God is
in fact three separate, equal and distinct persons rather than a single
person who merely reveals Himself at some times as Father, at other times as
Son, and still at other times as Holy Spirit? Are we to say that those who
believe that good works are meaningless in the process of salvation hold the
same faith as those of us who accept St. James' precept, namely that "faith
without works is dead"? Are we to acknowledge that those who are convinced
that the episcopacy is not scriptural [even though the New Testament makes
clear reference to the "episcopi"] hold the same truths that we hold? And
what about those Christians who believe that the white race is God's chosen
race, that all other races exist out of God's punishment or anger? Do these
Christians hold the same truths as we hold? Can one reconcile this notion
with the faith of St. Paul, who says that "in Christ their is neither male
nor female, Jew nor Greek," and, by extension, "black nor white nor red nor
yellow"? Would Roman Catholicism hold that those fundamentalist Christians
who believe that the Pope of Rome is one and the same as Anti-Christ hold
the same faith that they, as Roman Catholics, hold?

The Church struggles to preserve the "fullness of Truth." As such, there is
no room for "relativism" in the sense of "all Christians being grafted to
the same trunk." Clearly, there are those who's branches have completely
fallen from the trunk, who have severed any and all connection from
historical Christianity. Are you aware that there are those who literally be
lieve that from the time of the apostles until the first stirrings of
reformation, the "true" Church simply did not exist -- for some 1400 years!
It is patently ridiculous to imply that Orthodox Christianity should
acknowledge as "branches" those who reject the "trunk" from which they
supposedly sprout, or who deny that the "trunk" even exists in the first
place.

While the Church preserves the "fullness of Truth," it does not imply that
everyone else is completely and utterly devoid of all truth. As Fr. Georges
Florovsky once said, nothing is 100% wrong. Wherever life exists and love is
experienced, God's presence is found, even if those who live and love reject
His presence. Even if a tradition preserves but one percent of truth, it is
not totally devoid of truth. But one must not forget that one percent of the
truth is certainly not "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." And to
imply that traditions that believe in "truths" that are diametrically
opposed to those held by the Church in all places and at all times are
merely expressing the same faith but in different terms or from different
perspectives is not a principle of Orthodox Christianity; it is the hallmark
of relativism.

There is no "relativism" or "varying perspectives" or "nuances" in the truth
as revealed by Christ. For example, He did not say, "This is My Body, but it
is equally true that this could be My Body, or that this symbolizes My Body,
or that this is My Body if you believe it is but not My Body if you don't."
He said, "This IS My Body." Not much room for discussion or alternative
"expressions" here, or anywhere else in His words and actions.

Hope this helps.

In Christ,
Father John Matusiak

Do you have a question on the
Orthodox Faith, Christianity, or the Orthodox Church in America?
Contact Fr. John Matusiak at in...@oca.org

[v1...@hotmail.com]

> The statement to which you take exception is not a statement of
pride; it is
> a statement of fact that Orthodoxy indeed rejects the "branch
theory," for
> very good reason -- namely that not all who refer to themselves as
> "Christian" possess the fullness of Christian truth. To say that
"it's all
> the same, there's only one Christ, there's a variety of different
ways to
> express our belief in Him," is to flatly ignore the history of
Christianity,
> specifically the first two Ecumenical Councils, which discerned once
and for
> all the truth concerning the person and mission, the humanity and
divinity,
> of Jesus Christ -- and which, incidentally, in no way subscribes to
the
> branch theory.

Unfortunately many protestants seem to deny, or are not aware, of any
Church history prior to around the time of the reformation. Or they
have the Councils explained away in some manner or another so that they
are minor events at best. I will acknowledge that this is, of course,
a generalization. At any rate, I think a stronger argument here is
that even a slight deviation in doctrine in one place causes massive
ripples in another - very much like a small grain of sand can start a
massive avalanche.

A good example of this is many protestant assertions that Mary is not
the "Mother of God", but yet the mother of Jesus. I suppose that they
attempt to "preserve the divinity of Jesus", but the logical conclusion
of this argument is either that Mary is not the mother of Jesus at all,
-or- that Jesus is actually two beings that coexist in the same place
and time - one divine, and one human. Add to that the hidden
assumption that a mother creates their child!

Another example: denying the veneration of Icons. Following this to
its conclusion ends up denying the incarnation of Christ - much the
same way as in the previous example.

Or, asserting that the Pope of Rome is, even for a short time,
infallable: this causes severe issues with freedom of choice.

At the root (er, pardon the pun): the branch theory seems to view each
doctrine as loosely related to any other; a set of 'truths', if you
will, rather than all being part of ONE truth.

-V

[Zlatoust]

The church cannot be divided spiritually. God knows
all who are His, and there is no division with Him. There is indeed
only one
church redeemed from sin and called to serve God. But that unified
heavenly
church is organized in different ways on the earth, based upon varying
beliefs,
cultural traits and preferences. The members of this one church may not
agree
on every point, but that does not divide them in God's eyes. For
instance, the
New Testament shows divisions between believers from the very
beginning.
They disagreed on many nonessential doctrines and even on who their
leaders
should be, and yet the Bible still calls them Christians.
For instance, Rom. 14:1 says: "Accept him whose faith is weak,
without
passing judgment on disputable matters." Here Paul is saying that
there are
indeed "disputable matters" that divide Christians doctrinally, yet
he stresses
that this should not be a reason to divide Christians spiritually
("Accept
him..."). Christians do not have to agree on every doctrine to be
unified. Paul
says accept them anyway.
The New Testament shows the early Christians were divided into the
circumcision group and the non-circumcision group: "So when Peter
went up
to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him." (Acts 11:2)
"Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the
Pharisees
stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to
obey the
law of Moses.'" (Acts 15:5)
Notice the phrases "the circumcised believers" and "some of the
believers
who belonged to the party of the Pharisees."
Two things can be found here: first, that these people were divided and
distinct from other Christians, and second, that they were still called
believers.
This party of the Pharisees had strong opinions and influence. Even the
Apostle
Peter was afraid of them. "Before certain men came from James, he
used to eat
with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and
separate
himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged
to the
circumcision group." (Gal. 2:12).
Paul had "sharp dispute and debate with them" as Acts 15:2 says. An
apostle of God strongly disagreed with them, yet they were still
Christians.
The Corinthian church was also divided into at least two groups, the
Bible
tells us (1 Cor. 3:3-4): the followers of Paul and the followers of
Apollos. "You
are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among
you, are you
not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, 'I
follow
Paul,' and another, 'I follow Apollos,' are you not mere men?"
Paul said what was important was their allegiance to God, and not to
their
human leaders: "I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made
it grow.
So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God,
who
makes things grow." (I Cor. 3:6-7).
The early history of the church (after the New Testament was completed)
also shows many divisions and splits, many of which continue today.
Accordingly,
the argument that the church was unified until 1054 A.D. (when the
Catholic and Orthodox churches divided) is not borne out by history or
scripture.
For instance:
1) In 172 A.D. the Montanists split off from other churches, surviving
until the fifth century. They could be defined as more Pentecostal than
the
churches of the times.
2) In 251 AD the Novationists broke off from the other churches,
advocating
a more strict discipline of fallen church members than that of most
other
churches. They established a network of their own churches and
continued as a
separate movement until the 7th century, being attacked in the writings
of
Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria (580-607 A.D.)
3) In 451 the Nestorian churches split off, disagreeing with
the Council of Chalcedon's report on the nature of Jesus. They still
exist today in Iran and Iraq and India. Monophysite churches (Coptic)
later broke away, and still exist in the millions today in India,
Armenia, Syria, Egypt and Ethiopia. Encyclopedia Britannica states:
"In modern times those churches usually classified as Monophysite
(the Coptic,
the Syrian, and the Armenian) are generally accepted by Roman Catholic,
Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christendom as essentially orthodox in
their
doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ."
Subsequent splits that continue to the present day include, of course,
the
Catholic/Orthodox split (1054 A.D.), the Protestant/Catholic split
(16th
century), the Orthodox/Old Believer split (17th century) and many
others.
What is clear is that the Christian church - meaning all Christians
-
began with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. After that,
differences
emerged little by little between the churches. The actual dates that
mark
the birth of the individual churches is often hard to place. For
instance, there is
no specific time when one can say, "This was the day the Orthodox
church was
formed." The distinctive characteristics of the Orthodox church
appeared
gradually, as did the characteristics of the Catholic church.
Icons, for instance, gradually appeared from the fourth century until
the
sixth. The Catholic church approved new doctrines
as late as 1950, when it approved the bodily ascension of Mary into
heaven as
an official teaching of the Catholic church.
These changes in doctrine, Protestants believe, are evidence that the
church
was at its most perfect state in the first century when the apostles
lived, just
after Christ's ascension to heaven. Since that time the church has
struggled to
return to that level of miraculous power and holiness.
Despite the many divisions in the churches today - Catholic,
Protestant
and Orthodox - many Christians today maintain that the church is
still unified
spiritually if not organizationally.
They believe in an essential unity in Christ that supersedes
organizational
structures and minor differences in doctrine.
Protestants believe that there is a unity that crosses denominational
boundaries. For instance, Protestants share foundational doctrines
about the
divinity of Christ, repentance and faith in God, the inspiration of the
scriptures,
heaven, hell and eternal judgment.
Protestant churches are organized in many different administrations
based
on different views on church government and other minor issues. But
their
essential unity in Christ and devotion to him is unchanged. This
creates a unity
that supersedes organizational diversity.
The proof of this unity is evidenced by cooperation with other
denominations
in evangelistic outreaches, mission organizations and joint projects.
Examples of this interdenominational cooperation include broadcasts
such
as 700 Club and Focus on the Family, missions such as Campus Crusade
and
Youth with a Mission, publications such as Christianity Today, and
organizations
such as the National Association of Evangelicals and the Billy Graham
Evangelistic Association, to name a few. All of these unite primarily
evangelical
Protestant Christians.

Lastly, Protestants note that theological and organizational divisions
exist
not only in Protestant churches, but also in Orthodox and Catholic
churches., which have many breakaway groups divided by issues such as
the Old Calendar, the sign of the cross, language (e.g., Latin), and
jurisdiction (Ukraine, Bulgaria, Macedonia, for instance).

[AGGreen]

"Zlatoust" <kerby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110345075.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>non-Orthodox stuff snipped>

> Lastly, Protestants note that theological and organizational divisions
> exist
> not only in Protestant churches, but also in Orthodox and Catholic
> churches., which have many breakaway groups divided by issues such as
> the Old Calendar, the sign of the cross, language (e.g., Latin), and
> jurisdiction (Ukraine, Bulgaria, Macedonia, for instance).

***Correction: The "divisions" in Orthodoxy DO NOT involve theology and
dogma. The autonomous and autocephalous churches are ethnically and
nationalistically separate. They are ONE CHURCH, the True Church, the ONLY
Church. All of the things you mention -- calendar, manner of making the sign
of the cross, language (no Latin), etc. -- are not theological issues.

Al

[Zlatoust]

Dear Al,
Nice to hear from you. Hope all is well.

As to whether the divisions are theological, I would have to agree with
you in large part, except for the Armenian Orthodox Church
(monophysite), the Nestorian churches, and the Coptic Orthdox churches
(also monophysite). Also, if I may say so, I would prefer a little
theological difference on minor points to some of the violent
disagreements between brothers of like faith that are occuring in
Ukraine, Macedonia and Bulgaria.

[john j]

Please, there are 25 churches united in the Catholic church.They are
one united church.
They do not fall in and out of communion with each other as do Orthodox
churches.They don't remove the Pope from their prayers and put him back
as whim .AS Orthodox churches do to the patriarch of Constantinople
They do not have to each decide who is a saint. A saint in one is a
saint in all .
Also most of the formerly called 'Oriental " Orthodox churches have
denied their alleged heresies and acknowledged the first 7 councils
Which makes them fully Orthodox ( you really should keep up )

[AGGreen]

"Zlatoust" <kerby...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1110382977.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Dear Al,
> Nice to hear from you. Hope all is well.
>
> As to whether the divisions are theological, I would have to agree with
> you in large part, except for the Armenian Orthodox Church
> (monophysite), the Nestorian churches, and the Coptic Orthdox churches
> (also monophysite).

***Since these churches are not Eastern Orthodox, I avoid including them in
any discussion on this list.

Also, if I may say so, I would prefer a little
> theological difference on minor points to some of the violent
> disagreements between brothers of like faith that are occuring in
> Ukraine, Macedonia and Bulgaria.

***You must be kidding. Have these folks migrated from the Middle Ages yet.
No one, especially this Irishman, could possibly know what goes on in the
minds of the Ukrainians, Macedonians, and Bulgarians.

***BTW, The Macedonian Orthodox Church is not a canonical jurisdiction. It
admits its independence from Holy Orthodoxy.

Al

[AGGreen]

"john j" <JOH...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6717-422...@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...

***Oh wow! Let's all jump on the papal bandwagon and head for heretical
hell.

[Joe Orthodox]

Zlatoust wrote:
> Dear Al,
> Nice to hear from you. Hope all is well.
>
> As to whether the divisions are theological, I would have to agree with
> you in large part, except for the Armenian Orthodox Church
> (monophysite), the Nestorian churches, and the Coptic Orthdox churches

Those would be the Oriental Orthodox, not the Eastern Orthodox.
Nevertheless, they agree on the same doctrines except for the exact
nature of Christ, and this in itself may be more semantics than of
substance. Regarding icons, the means of salvation, the sacraments,
etc., they are on the same page as us.

> (also monophysite). Also, if I may say so, I would prefer a little
> theological difference on minor points to some of the violent

Minor theological disagreements among Protestants??? Let's take a look
at the "minor" disagreements...

A small number of Prots believe in OSAS (Once Saved, Always Saved), most
reject that doctrine. Some believe in the real presence of the Lord in
the communion elements, some don't. Some believe Christ was just only a
man, others believe he was only God. Some recognize the necessity of a
water baptism for salvation, a few don't. Some believe in the Trinity,
a few deny it. Some accept the reality of a visible Church, some reject
it. Some believe a marriage is between a man and woman only, others say
any marriage between bipedal animals is valid. Some say the Bible is
the Word of God, others say it's just a wise book. And all these groups
will say, with a straight face, that their doctrines are derived from
the "clear" meaning of Scripture.

These aren't "minor" disagreements, Kerby. There's nothing like this in
Orthodoxy. Though there is a less than 1% minority of Orthodox who've
chosen to break communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, there is no
difference in our theologies. We give the exact same directions to our
members on what's necessary to gain salvation, the nature of Christ, the
teachings of Christ, the status of the Bible, and so on. This isn't
even close to being the case with Protestantism's 30,000 (and growing)
sects.

> disagreements between brothers of like faith that are occuring in
> Ukraine, Macedonia and Bulgaria.

Do please provide your evidence of these "violent" disagreements in
those countries. Then we can talk about Calvin's theocracy, Protestant
witch trials, religion wars in Western Europe, Protestant slavery in the
American South, etc.

[Bbd]

john j wrote:
> Please, there are 25 churches united in the Catholic church.They are
> one united church.
> They do not fall in and out of communion with each other as do
Orthodox
> churches.

Oh they "fall out", all right. The "Old Catholics", for example, "fell
out"; most of the tens of thousands of protestant denominations trace
their roots back to "falling outs".

SSPX may well end up as a distinct "church" (as in the case of the Old
Catholics)because of its fidelity to what the RC church used to teach.
Many Uniate bodies have left Rome and returned to the true Church - the
difference between us and you is that "the fallen" rarely return
collectively to the Roman "apparatus".

>
> They don't remove the Pope from their prayers and put him back
> as whim .
>

This is because half the time they can't hear his name over the sounds
of electric guitars and tomtoms, or because they are distracted by the
gyrations of wiccan "liturgical dancers" celebrating the "goddess". The
majority simply don't care what is being prayed about - this applies to
RC clergy as well, as I know from personal experience.

Feeble attempts at humour aside, few RC's believe even a fraction of
the doctrines that are still "on the books". Surveys have been carried
out that indicate, for example, that only a minority of North Anerican
RC's believe in "transsubstantiation"; most are more of the protestant
"memorialist" mindset.

Ultimately, disregard for true unity of faith helps you to preserve
organizational unity. The only thing that really matters is solidarity
with the pope - almost anything else can, depending upon the
circumstances, be "winked at". You rejoice in this false unity, because
you have little else to rejoice in.

>
> AS Orthodox churches do to the patriarch of Constantinople
> They do not have to each decide who is a saint. A saint in one is a
> saint in all .
> Also most of the formerly called 'Oriental " Orthodox churches have
> denied their alleged heresies and acknowledged the first 7 councils
>

They certainly have not. What happened at the third meeting of the
Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church
and the "Oriental Orthodox" or monophysite churches at Chambésy was
that the the Commission came to the ill-considered conclusion that the
Orthodox and monophysites are in "total accord on the essential points
of the faith".

Their "Joint Declaration" is written in such Orwellian "newspeak", that
it is a positive invitation to "ecumenical" dishonesty. Yes, I know, we
have our own problems with cynical relativism - we are in danger of
falling into the "Roman trap" of sacrificing real unity of faith in
order to achieve external rapprochement.

The only heresy the "Oriental Orthodox" explicitly repudiated in
Chambésy was Eutychianism, but we knew they were "moderate
monophysites" all along, so the whole thing was little more than an
exercise in diplomacy; the monophysites conceded nothing.

The exact wording of the "Joint Declaration" with regard to the
Ecumenical Councils is as follows:

"The two families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils which form
our common heritage. With regard to the four later Councils of the
Orthodox Church, the Orthodox affirm that, for them, points one through
seven are also the teaching of these four later Councils, whereas the
Oriental Orthodox consider this affirmation of the Orthodox like their
own interpretation. In this sense the Oriental Orthodox respond
positively to this affirmation.

With regard to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the
Orthodox Church, the oriental Orthodox accept that the theology and the
practice of the veneration of icons taught by the Council are in
fundamental accord with the teaching and practice of the oriental
Orthodox since ancient times, well before the convocation of the
Council and that in this regard there is no disagreement between us."

This kind of language is unpleasantly reminiscent of the outcome of the
"Council of Florence", and about as Orthodox.

> Which makes them fully Orthodox ( you really should keep up )

See above.

[Joe Orthodox]

Zlatoust wrote:

> The church cannot be divided spiritually. God knows

Define "spiritually", then. This would imply there's an agreement on
spiritual values, in other words "beliefs", among Protestants, which
isn't the case.

> all who are His, and there is no division with Him. There is indeed
> only one
> church redeemed from sin and called to serve God. But that unified
> heavenly

And that Church is visible as well. By denying this fact, you deny the
"clear" words of Scripture.

> church is organized in different ways on the earth, based upon varying
> beliefs,
> cultural traits and preferences. The members of this one church may not
> agree
> on every point, but that does not divide them in God's eyes. For

If they don't agree on who Christ is, what He taught, who God is, His
plan for us, what's needed for salvation, etc., then the unity you
describe doesn't exist.

> instance, the
> New Testament shows divisions between believers from the very
> beginning.

Not on doctrine. What you do see are those outside the Christian
community teaching heretical doctrines that Paul warns his flock of.

> They disagreed on many nonessential doctrines and even on who their
> leaders
> should be, and yet the Bible still calls them Christians.

And this is where you try to hide the Protestant Problem. Non-doctrinal
matters are not the same as doctrinal matters that have to do with our
salvation.

> For instance, Rom. 14:1 says: "Accept him whose faith is weak,
> without
> passing judgment on disputable matters." Here Paul is saying that
> there are
> indeed "disputable matters" that divide Christians doctrinally, yet
> he stresses
> that this should not be a reason to divide Christians spiritually
> ("Accept
> him..."). Christians do not have to agree on every doctrine to be
> unified. Paul
> says accept them anyway.

He said no such thing, Kerby. Disputable matters would be like fasting
and other externals, but not on what's required for salvation or
Christ's identity, or whether Christ was crucified and resurrected, etc.
You're trying to conflate two issues, and your reading contradicts
Paul's other passages.

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."

These words from Peter, in reference to Paul, clearly teach you that
believing wrongly about Scripture leads to one's destruction. 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.

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

Paul is warning his followers about two Gnostic Christians, and that
these were dangerous folks. He doesn't tell them that they are a part
of the same invisible church. Your problem is that no one ever believed
in the invisible church theory until Protestantism arose and that's
because they had to explain away their ever-growing sects.

> The New Testament shows the early Christians were divided into the
> circumcision group and the non-circumcision group: "So when Peter
> went up

Again, not a doctrinal matter.

Again, none of this has to do with doctrinal matters, and you continue
to conflate various issues with a broad gray brush. Furthermore, the
fundie Protestants say these differences don't matter, but yet they're
out there trying hard to prosyletize other Christians. Why? Your
actions betray your words, especially when you get into those
Iconoclastic rants. The fact is that each Protestant sect has created
its own orthodoxy of sorts, and they believe it's necessary to make
other Christians follow their orthodoxy, as they see it. The delusion
holds their imagination because they've brainwashed themselves into
believing they don't hold fast to strict doctrines different from
everyone else.

> The early history of the church (after the New Testament was completed)
> also shows many divisions and splits, many of which continue today.

No it doesn't. The NT was completed around the fourth century, and for
hundreds of years before that you didn't have Apostles. What does this
mean? The Church was the sole source of authority since the beginning
as we can read about these Churches in Scripture (which proves its
pre-existence before the NT), and it used that authority to define and
collate the NT.

> Accordingly,

And thusly you move on without even trying to prove the previous
ludicrous claim...

What you failed to notice is that they adopted new doctrines and broke
off from Orthodoxy, which was and continues to be the same as the
Apostolic Faith. Basic logic would help.

> Subsequent splits that continue to the present day include, of course,
> the
> Catholic/Orthodox split (1054 A.D.), the Protestant/Catholic split
> (16th
> century), the Orthodox/Old Believer split (17th century) and many
> others.
> What is clear is that the Christian church - meaning all Christians
> -
> began with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. After that,
> differences
> emerged little by little between the churches. The actual dates that

Where's the Scriptural evidence you promised up above? There were no
multiple Churches, Kerby.

> mark
> the birth of the individual churches is often hard to place. For
> instance, there is
> no specific time when one can say, "This was the day the Orthodox
> church was
> formed." The distinctive characteristics of the Orthodox church
> appeared
> gradually, as did the characteristics of the Catholic church.

Talking points are cheap. And you contradict yourself further down by
claiming Protestantism is reclaiming a first century Christianity. This
is the box that Learner found himself in. When it's shown his Calvary
Chapel believes in contrived, innovative beliefs, he thusly claims all
Christians believe in developed doctrines. But then, with the wave of
the magic troll wand, you guys will say you're practicing "early"
Christianity! So easy to make things up when history's unimportant.

> Icons, for instance, gradually appeared from the fourth century until
> the
> sixth. The Catholic church approved new doctrines

Not true, Kerby. We went over this in the icons threads, which you've
obviously not read but instead choose to do yourself a disservice by
ignoring what's written by others. You've merely repeated the same
talking points as other fundie know-it-alls who visit, but quickly find
they're hard to defend when they're exposed for what they are.

We have early Christian images of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints, and
even Jewish mosaics of King David and the prophets.

Duro-Europos, home of many Jewish and Christian mosaics, is in Syria and
had a thriving Jewish
community. There are 3rd century mosaics of King David, events from
Ezekiel, and nearly thirty others in the ancient synagogue located in
this town. There is the floor at Hammas Tiberias (350 CE) with Jewish
images. Here you can view a painting of the sacrifice of Isaac in the
Beth Alpha Synagogue from the 500's:
http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/cja/Index_pres/Beit-Alpha%20Isaac.htm. And in
the middle ages we see vibrant manuscript artwork among the Jewish
community in Europe.

Let's take a look at the "early" art of Christians in the catacombs...

Catacombs of Callixtus (founded around the middle of the second century):
The story of Jonah (2nd century)

Necropolis under St. Peter's Mausoleum:
Sol-Christus (3rd century)

Catacombs of Domitilla:
Orpheus-Christ with animals (3rd c.)

Coemeterium Majus:
Good Shepherd (3rd c.)

Catacombs of Priscilla:
Good Shepherd (3rd c.)
Balaam pointing out star to Mary (3rd c.)
Madonna and Child (3rd c.)

Catacombs of St. Peter and Macellinus:
Jonah thrown to the whale (3rd c.)

Catacombs of St. Peter and Marcellinus:
Moses striking the rock (3rd c.)

Then we can see with our own eyes how similar the figures are in these
2nd and 3rd century images in the catacombs resemble our icons of today.
These "early" icons bear the same resemblance of modern icons:

Theotokos and Child
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/catacombs/madonna.jpg
http://www.skete.com/moreinfo_tn.cfm?Category=35&Product_ID=139

Good Shepherd
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/catacombs/goodshepherd1.jpg
http://www.skete.com/moreinfo.cfm?Category=34&Product_ID=94

Raising Lazarus
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/catacombs/lazarus1.jpg
http://www.skete.com/moreinfo.cfm?Category=40&Product_ID=281

Orans
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/catacombs/orante2.jpg
http://www.skete.com/moreinfo_tn.cfm?Category=35&Product_ID=153

> as late as 1950, when it approved the bodily ascension of Mary into
> heaven as
> an official teaching of the Catholic church.
> These changes in doctrine, Protestants believe, are evidence that the
> church
> was at its most perfect state in the first century when the apostles
> lived, just
> after Christ's ascension to heaven. Since that time the church has
> struggled to
> return to that level of miraculous power and holiness.

But in the first century, there was no Bible, no sola scriptura. This
blows away the foundation of Protestant thinking that they are
practicing a first century Christianity, when in fact we know the first
century Christians were highly liturgical, practiced water baptism,
believed and were members of a visible Church, fasted, repented and
communed during Liturgy, recognized the Apostolic succession, believed
salvation was a process, etc. What they most certainly didn't have was
a mass produced NT, with a full set of concordance notes in the margins.
If the Apostles were transported into a modern-day, charismaniac
church like the Assemblies of God, they'd be horrified. But they would
easily understand what was going on in an Orthodox service. We know
this through history, Scripture, and other writings such as the Didache
and the works of Justin Martyr.

> Despite the many divisions in the churches today - Catholic,
> Protestant
> and Orthodox - many Christians today maintain that the church is
> still unified
> spiritually if not organizationally.

And those Christians need to break away from the crack.

> They believe in an essential unity in Christ that supersedes
> organizational
> structures and minor differences in doctrine.

Kerby, are you saying that if one pastor teaches salvation is gained now
and can't be lost, while another says salvation can be lost, that this
is a "minor" doctrinal difference??? Are you saying that one pastor who
teaches that Scripture is the divine Word of God, but another says it's
just folk wisdom, that this is "minor?" I'd urge you guys to keep
generating these "minor" doctrinal differences. The smart ones are
leaving for Orthodoxy because they know better.

> Protestants believe that there is a unity that crosses denominational
> boundaries. For instance, Protestants share foundational doctrines
> about the
> divinity of Christ, repentance and faith in God, the inspiration of the
> scriptures,
> heaven, hell and eternal judgment.

That's completely untrue! Divinity in Christ? Tell that to the
Spongesque Christians in liberal Protestantism. You guys can't agree if
Christ is all man, all God, or if God is Triune in nature. Repentence
and faith in God? Again, many of your liberal Protestant
co-religionists would strongly disagree, where they reject most personal
sins of morality and often believe all faiths are relative. You guys
can't even agree on the definitions of "repentence" and "faith."
Inspiration of Scriptures? Again, many of your liberal Protestant
co-religionists would disagree. Also, Scriptures don't even define
what's in them. This requires a visible Church to tell you what they
are. Heaven, hell, and eternal judgement? Again, most of your liberal
Protestant co-religionists would disagree.

What one finds upon close examination is that Protestants don't really
agree on almost anything, minor or major, doctrinal or even simple
external practices.

> Protestant churches are organized in many different administrations
> based
> on different views on church government and other minor issues. But

Again, you're being disengenuous. It won't work with us, Kerby.

> their
> essential unity in Christ and devotion to him is unchanged. This
> creates a unity
> that supersedes organizational diversity.

Read above.

> The proof of this unity is evidenced by cooperation with other
> denominations
> in evangelistic outreaches, mission organizations and joint projects.

But a significant number of them don't do this. Hence, there's no unity.

> Examples of this interdenominational cooperation include broadcasts
> such
> as 700 Club and Focus on the Family, missions such as Campus Crusade
> and
> Youth with a Mission, publications such as Christianity Today, and
> organizations
> such as the National Association of Evangelicals and the Billy Graham
> Evangelistic Association, to name a few. All of these unite primarily
> evangelical
> Protestant Christians.

Fundies participate in fundie style activities, others don't. There's
no unity.

> Lastly, Protestants note that theological and organizational divisions
> exist
> not only in Protestant churches, but also in Orthodox and Catholic
> churches., which have many breakaway groups divided by issues such as
> the Old Calendar, the sign of the cross, language (e.g., Latin), and
> jurisdiction (Ukraine, Bulgaria, Macedonia, for instance).

Again, you can't tell the difference between doctrine and externals.
Those breakaway groups in Orthodoxy constitute less than 1% of the
Orthodox fold, and they still embrace the exact same doctrines as the
other 99%. Sorry, Kerby, but the reasoning employed here is no
different than what we've seen before, and adequately refuted.

[Zlatoust]

Dear Joe,

Hey. Hope you are having a good day. Only have time to note one point
--

I wrote:
> The New Testament shows the early Christians were divided into the
> circumcision group and the non-circumcision group: "So when Peter
> went up

You wrote:
Again, not a doctrinal matter.

I
My reply:
I must disagree. It was clearly doctrinal. Some thought that unless
you were circumcised, you could not be saved. The whole church debated
that at the first church council in Jerusalem. There were doctrinal
differences between Christians in the early church and yet they were
called Christians. There are some points that are minor and some that
are major. No protestant is saying that one dan deny the resurrection
and be a Christian (well maybe some very liberal ones, but not the
majority of us, and certainly no evangelicals). That is a major
difference. No compromise there. But you can disagree on candles, holy
days, church membership, etc., and be saved. It may even be possible
for some Orthodox to be saved! Maybe even you!
Just joking Joe. Hope you haven't lost your sense of humor.
But what we believe, and I agree with you here, is really important, as
Paul told Timothy: Pay close attention to your life and your doctrine,
for by so doing you will save you self and and your hearers."

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

Well Joe, I see that your tactics haven't changed at all over the past
few weeks. You continue to pummel your OSAS strawman - a topic that
wasn't even mentioned, as well repeat your factually incorrect and
misleading Ortho-ganda.

> We have early Christian images of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints,
and
> even Jewish mosaics of King David and the prophets.

Do any of these date to the first century?

The sad fact of the matter is that the veneration of icons has no
support in the New Testament. The practice of making and venerating
icons arose over the centuries as the result of the intrusion/inclusion
of Pagan practices into Christianity. There is a lot of testimony
against images in early Christianity and this was a huge embarrassment
to the iconophiles in the iconoclastic controversy. On many occassions
and in several thread, I challenged anyone to demonstrate that icon
veneration was a practice that could be traced to the teachings of the
Apostles or of the earliest Church. If Orthodoxy is indeed a straight
and unchanging stream flowing from the Apostles, then one should be
able to trace this crucial practice and dogma of the Orthodox Church
directly back to the source.

I have yet to see this. I have heard a lot of rationalizations, rants,
dodges, and insults, but have yet to see the proof.

As for your early images, John of Damascus supported icon painting and
veneration, not on early Christianity, but on the wrong assumption that
people knew what Jesus looked like.

If we look at early Christian art [I said "art," not "venerated images"
- there is a difference which the Orthodox love to muddle] we clearly
see that no one had the foggiest idea what Jesus looked like. All
images of Jesus are creations of human imagination.

That is why the earliest images of Jesus show him as a beardless young
Jewish man, as a magician, as an Apollo-like man, as a variant of
Jupiter Olympus, and in the Semitic form as triangular-faced man with a
short beard and kinky hair.

> But in the first century, there was no Bible, no sola scriptura.

So, you do not consider the Old Testament as part of the Bible? Or did
the Orthodox Chruch give Moses the Torah on Mount Sinai ?

> This blows away the foundation of Protestant thinking that they are
> practicing a first century Christianity,

The earliest Christians were Jews who worshipped G_d on Saturday in the
synagogues. Aside from believing that Jesus was the Messiah, they
looked and acted like any other Jew of their day.

> when in fact we know the first century Christians were highly
liturgical,

However, we can see from the Didache that their Litury was nothing like
your Byzantine mongrel Church's Liturgy.

> practiced water baptism,

Of adults who had to fast for two days. Also, the early Christians
used running water, as seen in the Didache.

> believed and were members of a visible Church,

Yes

>fasted,

By not eating anything, as opposed to the modern Orthodox practice of
abstinence from one thing or another - depending on the day.

> repented and communed during Liturgy,

Not so fast. In the Didache the Eucharist is very different that what
is found in later Orthodoxy. There is no connection between the
Eucharist and the death of Jesus, and there is hint of the concept of
"real presence."

But, as you have pointed only many, many times, there is also no
mention of a dying and resurrected Jesus in the Didache since this was
not a part of their doctrines or beliefs

> recognized the Apostolic succession,

Wrong again. The myth of apostolic succession first appeared in a
rather crude form in a document called 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."

"Overseers" is "episkopos," which later became the term "bishop."
Clement's statement is found in a letter of rebuke which required some
authority - which was found in the myth that authority came down
through the years from the Apostles. Clement planted the seed that
mutated Christianity into a hierarchal system that was very different
from the arrangement found in the Didache.

> believed salvation was a process, etc.

That's your strawman. The thief on the cross was saved instantly,
unless you want to repeat your silly harangue that this man lived his
life as a pious and holy thief.

> What they most certainly didn't have was
> a mass produced NT, with a full set of concordance notes in the
margins.

True. In fact, most Orthodox lands did not even have mass produced
Bibles until very recently - and they were mostly printed/distributed
by Protestants.

I have discussed that fact that, in the Didache, there is no "body and
blood of Christ" in the Eucharist. This alone serously calls into
question Orthodoxy's claim to be the original faith of Christianity and
the Apostles.

But wait, there is so much more. The Didache does not mention the
creation or veneration of icons [which was a later practice adopted
from the Pagans], there is no baptism of infants, there was preference
for flowing water instead of water from a receptacle, there were
"Prophets" and "Apostles" who were later removed from the church
hierarchy, there was no veneration of Mary or of Saints, there is no
mention of the virgin birth [much like Paul's Epistles and the Gospel
of Mark], there was no doctrine of the atonement, there was no
hierarchical appointment of bishops.

The one area where the Didache is in agreement with Orthodox Canons,
was to not give up slavery. Slavery is still perfectly proper
according to Orthodox Canons. Even modern copies of the Pedalion ["The
Rudder"] make a number of Church declarations that accept the
institution of slavery as a matter of fact.

> If the Apostles were transported into a modern-day, charismaniac
> church like the Assemblies of God, they'd be horrified.

I agree.

> But they would easily understand what was going on in an Orthodox
> service.

I agree again. These men lived in a mixed multi-cultural society where
they saw Pagan practices, such as the veneration of images. They would
probably be more horrified in your Church.

> We know this through history, Scripture, and other writings such as
the
> Didache and the works of Justin Martyr.

We know no such thing.

The disciples of Jesus did not agree on who he was and what he said.
The whole corpus of Church Tradition and the absurd notion of
"apostolicity" was a later creation of a very human organization who
wanted to read its doctrines back into time - regardless of the
evidence.

Anyone who has ever read the Gospels can see that Mark's view of Jesus
was completely different from that of the Gospel of John. In fact, if
we look at the NT in chronological order, we find that according to the
Paul, Jesus became God's son at the resurrection. According to Mark
[the earliest Gospel account], Jesus became God's son at his baptism.
According to Luke, Jesus became God's son at his birth. In the end,
John, [whose Gospel took much longer than the other Gospels to be
accepted by early Christians], Jesus is the pre-existent "Logos". So
even in the Gospels - the earliest accounts of Christ's life - there is
a persistent pushing back of the sonship of Jesus in time.

Also, the Didache [and I have no idea why you Orthodox point to this
document since it blows a huge hole in your Church's false historical
claims] clearly holds a subordinationist view of Jesus. Justin Martyr,
who you called to your Church's defense, also had a subordinationist
view of Jesus very similar to that of the Didache.

Once again Joey, there is no "true Church". All groups contain some
elements of early Christianity, but none is exactly the same. The fact
that Orthodoxy froze its theology at a point in history doesn't make
its claim any better than any other group.

Learner

[AGGreen]

"Zlatoust" <kerby...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1110398872.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Dear Joe,
>
> Hey. Hope you are having a good day. Only have time to note one point
> --
>
> I wrote:
> > The New Testament shows the early Christians were divided into the
> > circumcision group and the non-circumcision group: "So when Peter
> > went up
>
> You wrote:
> Again, not a doctrinal matter.
> I
> My reply:
> I must disagree. It was clearly doctrinal. Some thought that unless
> you were circumcised, you could not be saved. The whole church debated
> that at the first church council in Jerusalem. There were doctrinal
> differences between Christians in the early church and yet they were
> called Christians. There are some points that are minor and some that
> are major. No protestant is saying that one dan deny the resurrection
> and be a Christian (well maybe some very liberal ones, but not the
> majority of us, and certainly no evangelicals). That is a major
> difference. No compromise there. But you can disagree on candles, holy
> days, church membership, etc., and be saved. It may even be possible
> for some Orthodox to be saved!

***The Orthodox believe that ALL will be in the presence of God in the
afterlife.

Al

[Learner]

Zlatoust wrote:
> You wrote:
> Again, not a doctrinal matter.

> My reply:

> I must disagree. It was clearly doctrinal. Some thought that unless
> you were circumcised, you could not be saved. The whole church
debated
> that at the first church council in Jerusalem. There were doctrinal
> differences between Christians in the early church and yet they were
> called Christians. There are some points that are minor and some
that
> are major.

And this dispute died out when the Jewish converts died!

> But you can disagree on candles, holy
> days, church membership, etc., and be saved. It may even be
possible
> for some Orthodox to be saved! Maybe even you!

The funny thing is that most Orthodox would call these "minor" issues,
yet they have, at times caused schisms in Orthodoxy. At one point in
time, there were 2 Greek Orthodox Cathedrals here in New York which
split over calendars!

Learner

[v1...@hotmail.com]

Zlatoust wrote:
> The church cannot be divided spiritually. God knows
> all who are His, and there is no division with Him. There is indeed
> only one
> church redeemed from sin and called to serve God. But that unified
> heavenly
> church is organized in different ways on the earth, based upon
varying
> beliefs,
> cultural traits and preferences. The members of this one church may
not
> agree
> on every point, but that does not divide them in God's eyes.

Ahh... you are proving my point. Here we see an introduction of the
"invisible church doctrine" - something that is necessitated by the
branch theory doctrine.

However, the branch theory dosn't sit well with 1 Corinthians. One
body - not many. And the invisible church doctrine has problems with
Jms:5:14, as well as the whole Old Testament (Jews were set apart by
God, there was no 'invisible Hebrew tribe').

> For instance, the
> New Testament shows divisions between believers from the very
> beginning.
> They disagreed on many nonessential doctrines and even on who their
> leaders
> should be, and yet the Bible still calls them Christians.
> For instance, Rom. 14:1 says: "Accept him whose faith is weak,
> without
> passing judgment on disputable matters." Here Paul is saying that
> there are
> indeed "disputable matters" that divide Christians doctrinally,
> yet
> he stresses
> that this should not be a reason to divide Christians spiritually

Exactly! Accept them *in the same church*, not invisibly.

...

(Acts 11:2)

> Notice the phrases "the circumcised believers" and "some of the
> believers
> who belonged to the party of the Pharisees."
> Two things can be found here: first, that these people were divided
and
> distinct from other Christians, and second, that they were still
called
> believers.

Again, in the same Church. The "circumsized believers" didn't go off
and start their own church.

...

You show many of the same points, through Scripture and history. The
point you are missing is that both sides thought that they were right,
and that the other was incorrect. Neither side was saying that *both*
doctrines were correct - which is what branch theory leads to.

On the topic of any current issues: eventually one will be accepted and
the other not. Perhaps in the case of the Oriental Churches it is just
a matter of language, but this is for the true Theologists on both
sides to sort out and certainly beyond me.

-V

[AGGreen]

***So, it was calm and quiet without you. Why did you crawl out from under
your heretical rock?

Al

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110405097.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[chucker]

RATS! I did it myself. I forgot to clear out all the additional
cross-posted newsgroups by clicking on Quick Response. This can be
tricky. I just don't understand why characters like this "pastor dave"
insist on spamming.

[Joe Orthodox]

Zlatoust wrote:
> Dear Joe,
>
> Hey. Hope you are having a good day. Only have time to note one point
> --
>
> I wrote:
>
>>The New Testament shows the early Christians were divided into the
>>circumcision group and the non-circumcision group: "So when Peter
>>went up
>
>
> You wrote:
> Again, not a doctrinal matter.
> I
> My reply:
> I must disagree. It was clearly doctrinal. Some thought that unless

It wasn't doctrinal at all. It had nothing to do with salvation, and
you didn't even try to demonstrate such through Scriptural references.
It was about the manner of reception of converts to Christianity, and a
natural discussion given that Christianity was expanding beyond Jewish
territory.

Furthermore, there was no administrative, communal break in this
disagreement. There wasn't a hair's difference between the
soteriological or Incarnational doctrines, or any doctrine, of either
viewpoint. You can't compare this to the situation with Protestantism,
where they can't even agree who Christ is, the contents and teaching of
Scripture, or what's necessary for salvation.

[Stephen M. Adams]

"chucker" <leus...@gmail.com> writes:

>RATS! I did it myself. I forgot to clear out all the additional
>cross-posted newsgroups by clicking on Quick Response. This can be
>tricky. I just don't understand why characters like this "pastor dave"
>insist on spamming.

Attention. And foolishly, I gave it to him. No more. Broke my own
cardinal rule of not responding to cross-posting trolls like "Pastor"
Dave.

Of course, anytihng to do with Steve Winter is a different story,
since THAT cross-posting troll has sued me (and 20 or so others).

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Zlatoust wrote:
>
>>You wrote:
>>Again, not a doctrinal matter.
>
>
>>My reply:
>>I must disagree. It was clearly doctrinal. Some thought that unless
>>you were circumcised, you could not be saved. The whole church
>
> debated
>
>>that at the first church council in Jerusalem. There were doctrinal
>>differences between Christians in the early church and yet they were
>>called Christians. There are some points that are minor and some
>
> that
>
>>are major.
>
>
> And this dispute died out when the Jewish converts died!

No, it died out when the Church said circumcision wasn't required for
gentile converts. You seem so saddened that Christianity became a world
religion rather than an obscure Jewish sect.

>>But you can disagree on candles, holy
>>days, church membership, etc., and be saved. It may even be
>
> possible
>
>>for some Orthodox to be saved! Maybe even you!
>
>
>
> The funny thing is that most Orthodox would call these "minor" issues,
> yet they have, at times caused schisms in Orthodoxy. At one point in
> time, there were 2 Greek Orthodox Cathedrals here in New York which
> split over calendars!
>
> Learner

The calendar issue isn't doctrinal. It's an external matter of the
Liturgy and Church cycle, but not doctrinal. Most Old Calendar and New
Calendar Orthodox are in communion, and are not in administrative schism
over it. It's only those in a 1% minority, and yet they share the exact
same doctrines as the rest of Orthodoxy. No difference whatsoever in
their teachings about salvation and Christ, a feat that can't be claimed
by Protestants. Sorry, but you again demonstrate a superficial
understanding of Orthodoxy.

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
> Well Joe, I see that your tactics haven't changed at all over the past
> few weeks. You continue to pummel your OSAS strawman - a topic that
> wasn't even mentioned, as well repeat your factually incorrect and
> misleading Ortho-ganda.

Ah, the neighborhood troll returns, and picks right back up stealing my
lines because he doesn't have an original thought of his own. Not
surprising considering his track record of plagiarizing, and quick
sprint from his earlier claims to being a historian when it was observed
that he had no original writing of his own to provide.

>>We have early Christian images of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints,
>
> and
>
>>even Jewish mosaics of King David and the prophets.
>
>
> Do any of these date to the first century?

(Notice how our troll snipped the ensuing material that proved his
out-of-the-back-pocket rant to be false.)

They date to "early" Christianity, which was your original litmus test,
right? They date to the second century, which is about, oh, 1700 years
before the invention of your Calvary Church's rapture theology. Or 1400
years before sola scriptura.

> The sad fact of the matter is that the veneration of icons has no
> support in the New Testament. The practice of making and venerating
> icons arose over the centuries as the result of the intrusion/inclusion
> of Pagan practices into Christianity. There is a lot of testimony

Oh, isn't this entertaining. You were beaten black and blue by Leonidas
over this, and I proved to you that Jews were creating icons. What do
you do? Take a few days off hoping Leonidas would go away, then start
back at square one. Nice try, but it won't work. Here's your spanking
again...

We have early Christian images of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints, and
even Jewish mosaics of King David and the prophets.

Duro-Europos, home of many Jewish and Christian mosaics, is in Syria and

> against images in early Christianity and this was a huge embarrassment

> to the iconophiles in the iconoclastic controversy. On many occassions

Leonidas challenged you to produce this "lot" of testimony... what did
you do? Snipped and ran as usual.

> and in several thread, I challenged anyone to demonstrate that icon
> veneration was a practice that could be traced to the teachings of the
> Apostles or of the earliest Church. If Orthodoxy is indeed a straight

No, you were challenged to produce evidence that they were not
venerated, and now you come back with a tu quoque. If we reach a date
when iconoclasm arose in the 7th century, while icon veneration was the
apparent norm for hundreds of years, it's your task to prove at which
point this supposedly egregious practice began. We have second century
paintings that have the same themes, style, and poses of later
iconography. It's more believable, especially after reading someone
like Eusebius, that Christian treatment of the early artwork was
similar, if not the same, as the later artwork.

By the time the iconoclasts arrived on the scene, icon veneration was
well documented and in play for hundreds of years. Yet... modern fundie
iconoclasts such as yourself would like to pretend iconoclasm was the
norm and suddenly the horrible practice of icon veneration sprang from
nowhere, to the shock and surprise of all.

But this is really a diversion. The fundie rationale for their
heretical iconoclasm isn't about veneration, per se, of icons. It's
about icons, and their misunderstanding of idolatry. Instead, you
continuously change the goal posts of your harangue because you realize
you don't have a historical, theological, or Scriptural leg to stand on.

> and unchanging stream flowing from the Apostles, then one should be
> able to trace this crucial practice and dogma of the Orthodox Church
> directly back to the source.

Strawman. We never said practices stayed the same, and you've been
spanked too many times to count over this, Stevie. The theology of
icons, which is the Incarnation, does in fact stream back to the
Apostles. When this is proven to you by referencing the Gospel of John
and other NT material, you attack the veracity of those holy books.
Really, Stevie, who have you convinced with these harangues?

> I have yet to see this. I have heard a lot of rationalizations, rants,
> dodges, and insults, but have yet to see the proof.

All you've provided is a continued stealing of my lines. It's become so
bad that you can't post a single message to this list anymore without
using my words.

> As for your early images, John of Damascus supported icon painting and
> veneration, not on early Christianity, but on the wrong assumption that
> people knew what Jesus looked like.

No, his argument was supported on the theology of the Incarnation.

> If we look at early Christian art [I said "art," not "venerated images"
> - there is a difference which the Orthodox love to muddle] we clearly

No, it's a difference you continuously fail to produce. You've made a
positive assertion that the "early" Christian art wasn't venerated. And
if you're going to continue throwing the word "early" around so
cavalierly, I'm going to continue reminding you that you've dodged my
challenge to you to define the word, with an exact time frame, and then
I'll measure how consistently you apply the standard to your contrived
19th century beliefs.

> see that no one had the foggiest idea what Jesus looked like. All
> images of Jesus are creations of human imagination.

But you contradict yourself with the next paragraph...

> That is why the earliest images of Jesus show him as a beardless young
> Jewish man, as a magician, as an Apollo-like man, as a variant of
> Jupiter Olympus, and in the Semitic form as triangular-faced man with a
> short beard and kinky hair.

Beardless Jewish man??? How do you know it's a depiction of a Jewish
man? How do you know it is Jesus since you've claimed you don't know
what He looked like, and don't form visual images of Him in your mind?

>>But in the first century, there was no Bible, no sola scriptura.
>
>
> So, you do not consider the Old Testament as part of the Bible? Or did
> the Orthodox Chruch give Moses the Torah on Mount Sinai ?

Not by itself. The OT alone won't teach you a whit about the
crucifixion, resurrection, the Trinity, what's necessary for our
salvation, Christ's teachings, His nature, His mission for all of
mankind, His return, or anything else that is identifiable as Christian.

Nice try at a diversion. But Kerby's attempt here was to claim a
particular Orthodox belief wasn't present in the first century, and I
merely pointed out the foundation of his own theology wasn't there.
What do you do? Jump in with a lame attempt to divert the discussion.

>>This blows away the foundation of Protestant thinking that they are
>>practicing a first century Christianity,
>
>
> The earliest Christians were Jews who worshipped G_d on Saturday in the

What's this "G_d" thing? Did you forget how to spell God? Is your
conversion to fundamentalist Judeo-Islam finally complete??? Answer the
question, Stevie. You knew how to spell God's name not long ago; it
really begs the question why you've changed your spelling habits.

> synagogues. Aside from believing that Jesus was the Messiah, they
> looked and acted like any other Jew of their day.

They believed Jesus was the Son of God. They believed He rose from the
dead. They believed He was born of a virgin. The believed He would
return again from heaven. Oh, how funny that you ignore the obvious, or
rather it's sad how you deny the items I just listed by attacking the
veracity of the Bible, while then hypocritically challenging others to
prove something according to the Bible alone, a set of documents you
hold low regard for.

>>when in fact we know the first century Christians were highly
>
> liturgical,
>
> However, we can see from the Didache that their Litury was nothing like
> your Byzantine mongrel Church's Liturgy.

If you really believe that, then I challenge you to print as many copies
of the Didache and distribute them to your Calvary Chapel friends. The
Liturgy in the Didache includes fasting, repentance, communion, etc. is
what you see in Orthodoxy today, and not your charismaniac cult. It was
very similar to the Jewish Liturgy, and the Orthodox Liturgy maintains
such striking similarities.

>>practiced water baptism,
>
>
> Of adults who had to fast for two days. Also, the early Christians
> used running water, as seen in the Didache.

Wrong. It says nothing about adults, which you were spanked on before.
Keep at, Stevie. I'll be here to remind you of your errors. As far
as running water is concerned, this is what it says...

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: 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. But if you have no living water, baptize
into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.
But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into
the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let
the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall
order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

Don't tell me that your Calvary Chapel baptises its members at some
rapids in Colorado. And don't tell me you guys fast. If your minister
ever asked the members of your cult to fast, they'd probably scratch
their heads and say, "What's the hurry?"

>>believed and were members of a visible Church,
>
>
> Yes
>
>
>>fasted,
>
>
> By not eating anything, as opposed to the modern Orthodox practice of
> abstinence from one thing or another - depending on the day.

Where does it say not "anything?" Where did you read it in the Didache,
Stevie? Why do you continue playing dumb and assuming others in the
list won't check the material for themselves?

>>repented and communed during Liturgy,
>
>
> Not so fast. In the Didache the Eucharist is very different that what
> is found in later Orthodoxy. There is no connection between the
> Eucharist and the death of Jesus, and there is hint of the concept of
> "real presence."

You again make the illogical mistake of presuming this document is an
all-inclusive description of the Liturgy and beliefs of the Christians
using it, another tell-tell sign you've no training as a historian. The
contents and structure of the Liturgy in the Didache is consistent with
the Orthodox one, not a charismaniac ecstasy session. You're trying to
do a backwards comparison of every detail between the Didache and
Orthodox service and... surprise! The Orthodox one seems more
elaborate. But it's not a surprise for a sober mind, really.

> But, as you have pointed only many, many times, there is also no
> mention of a dying and resurrected Jesus in the Didache since this was
> not a part of their doctrines or beliefs

Which proves that the document isn't inclusive of ALL Christian beliefs.
But the material in the Didache IS a subset of what can be seen as
Orthodox. It has no resemblance at all of your charismaniac cult, or
whatever Christ-denying cult you've recently converted to.

>>recognized the Apostolic succession,
>
>
> Wrong again. The myth of apostolic succession first appeared in a
> rather crude form in a document called 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."
>
>
> "Overseers" is "episkopos," which later became the term "bishop."

Another of your lies, and I'll keep reminding you as long as you decide
to play stupid. Read Chapter 15 of the Didache...

"Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore,
for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and
not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to
you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them,
for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.
And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in
the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one
speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your
prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel
of our Lord."

Bishops were not a later creation, but existed in the first century!

> Clement's statement is found in a letter of rebuke which required some
> authority - which was found in the myth that authority came down
> through the years from the Apostles. Clement planted the seed that
> mutated Christianity into a hierarchal system that was very different
> from the arrangement found in the Didache.

Read your spanking above. I hope you continue this line of thought.
It's fun watching you struggle at the bottom of the barrel.

>>believed salvation was a process, etc.
>
>
> That's your strawman. The thief on the cross was saved instantly,
> unless you want to repeat your silly harangue that this man lived his
> life as a pious and holy thief.

The OC never taught he was a pious and holy thief prior to his
conversion, O' Lying One. He converted to Christ and maintained his
belief until the end, though it was not long. This is Scriptural, and
Orthodox. The OSAS theology of your Calvary Church cult says one is
saved now and forever regardless of your later behavior and belief.
This isn't what one learns from the thief on the cross.

>>What they most certainly didn't have was
>>a mass produced NT, with a full set of concordance notes in the
>
> margins.
>
> True. In fact, most Orthodox lands did not even have mass produced
> Bibles until very recently - and they were mostly printed/distributed
> by Protestants.

Orthodox Catholics gave you your Bible to mass produce. The eastern
lands had mass produced Bibles since the printing press, but you miss
the obvious (again). You've placed a huge importance on owning a
personal NT canon (a canon which you can't define, and run from every
time challenged, and which books you attack at will) to the EXCLUSION of
everything else, and yet can't find any Scriptural basis for such an
unbalanced emphasis. In fact, the fruits of this practice are apparent
- 30,000 and growing sects who can't agree on the plain meaning of
Scripture. Orthodox, on the other hand, have a consistent teaching on
Christ and soteriology. That's what's important.

> I have discussed that fact that, in the Didache, there is no "body and
> blood of Christ" in the Eucharist. This alone serously calls into

There's a body and blood of Christ in Scripture, and in "early" Church
Father writings. Go ahead, post your canned talking points claiming
certain Fathers didn't believe in the presence. I'll expose your idiocy
again, "Learner."

> question Orthodoxy's claim to be the original faith of Christianity and
> the Apostles.

The second sentence doesn't logically follow the second, presuming the
first is true which it isn't. You fail basic logic again.

> But wait, there is so much more. The Didache does not mention the
> creation or veneration of icons [which was a later practice adopted

It doesn't mention the NT canon, sola scriptura, or anything else that
resembles your Calvary Church cult, or whatever Christ-denying sect
you've apparently joined.

> from the Pagans], there is no baptism of infants, there was preference
> for flowing water instead of water from a receptacle, there were

Where does it say infants, Stevie? Where does it say adults? Where is
this prohibition anywhere in Scripture or the Didache??? You can't
produce it, and in fact such a prohibition is believed only by a small
number of fundie sects. Most Protestants know better.

And if you had ever seen an Orthodox baptism you wouldn't be raising the
"flowing" water bit. This is another clue that you're a liar by
claiming to formerly be Orthodox.

> "Prophets" and "Apostles" who were later removed from the church
> hierarchy, there was no veneration of Mary or of Saints, there is no

Your proof???

> mention of the virgin birth [much like Paul's Epistles and the Gospel

The Virgin Birth is in the Gospels, Stevie. You're getting boring with
your argumentum ex silentio. Please do us all a favor and admit you've
left the Christian fold. It puts your harangues in context.

> of Mark], there was no doctrine of the atonement, there was no
> hierarchical appointment of bishops.

Note how you don't mention the Gospel of Matthew. If the NT book is
inconvenient, you omit it. And that leads to your refusal do define the
exact content of Scripture, and the method you would use.

> The one area where the Didache is in agreement with Orthodox Canons,
> was to not give up slavery. Slavery is still perfectly proper

What??? Is there something in the Didache about "bondsmen" that's not
in Paul's writings??? Show us your quotes, Stevie. I'll show you
Paul's words, following which I'm sure you'll attack Paul in your
harangue of the day.

> according to Orthodox Canons. Even modern copies of the Pedalion ["The
> Rudder"] make a number of Church declarations that accept the
> institution of slavery as a matter of fact.

Not true, and when you were cornered on this before, you snipped and
ran. You post in this list under the dishonest nick of "Learner" when
in fact it's a very thin veneer covering a cynical hatred of Orthodoxy,
and rational thought for that matter, and it's won you no converts.
How's it feel being a failure, Stevie? You're probably used to it,
given you're a professional student living off of Papa's money.

> These men lived in a mixed multi-cultural society where
> they saw Pagan practices, such as the veneration of images. They would
> probably be more horrified in your Church.

Not at all, considering Jews in the area were creating the same images.

>>We know this through history, Scripture, and other writings such as
>
> the
>
>>Didache and the works of Justin Martyr.
>
>
> We know no such thing.

We do know such, but you wouldn't because you're incapable of reading
anything hard like a real book, preferring instead whatever Islamic web
site has caught your fancy.

> The disciples of Jesus did not agree on who he was and what he said.

Not after the Resurrection. Prove otherwise. But alas, you run in
another direction aftet dropping a baseless assertion...

> The whole corpus of Church Tradition and the absurd notion of
> "apostolicity" was a later creation of a very human organization who
> wanted to read its doctrines back into time - regardless of the
> evidence.

Tell us, when was it created? You've made a positive assertion. Stop
running from the challenges and hard questions, "Learner."

> Anyone who has ever read the Gospels can see that Mark's view of Jesus
> was completely different from that of the Gospel of John. In fact, if

Which means... nothing. The fallacy of argumentum ex silentio is a
labelled a fallacy for a reason, Stevie. Go ask one of your Muslim
roommates to explain it to you.

> we look at the NT in chronological order, we find that according to the

Chronological order doesn't determine credibility or accuracy. The
later books of John, someone who knew Christ personally, are vastly more
reliable and credible than earlier books by someone who didn't.

> Paul, Jesus became God's son at the resurrection. According to Mark
> [the earliest Gospel account], Jesus became God's son at his baptism.

There's no agreement among scholars that it's the earliest account. In
fact, the Jesus Seminar scholarship, which you're so fond of picking
from when it's convenient for your harangue, has really fell by the
wayside and been discredited in scholarly circles. You're well behind
the curve, Stevie.

> According to Luke, Jesus became God's son at his birth. In the end,

So easy to cut-n-past the talking points, but so much harder to prove it
by cross-referencing the material in Scripture, eh?

> John, [whose Gospel took much longer than the other Gospels to be
> accepted by early Christians], Jesus is the pre-existent "Logos". So
> even in the Gospels - the earliest accounts of Christ's life - there is
> a persistent pushing back of the sonship of Jesus in time.

And this harangue is further proof you're not a Christian.

> Also, the Didache [and I have no idea why you Orthodox point to this
> document since it blows a huge hole in your Church's false historical

Stealing my lines again...

> claims] clearly holds a subordinationist view of Jesus. Justin Martyr,

That's not "clear" at all. Again, so easy to repeat the pamphlet points
than read a real history book, and employ sound logic.

> who you called to your Church's defense, also had a subordinationist
> view of Jesus very similar to that of the Didache.

I challenge you to copy the Didache and distribute it to your cult,
Stevie. How many of your uneducate fundie co-religionists would even
know what the Didache is? If you truly believe it's magic bullet for
Pentecostal fundamentalism, then why is it and Patristics not required
reading for those churches? You know the answer.

> Once again Joey, there is no "true Church". All groups contain some

Once again, you deny Christ and His words in Scripture. Not a surprise,
given that you don't believe in a Christ. And I'll continue raising
this fact because you've dropped enough attacks on Christ, most of the
NT, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the authority of Scripture as the
Word of God, and even the normal spelling of "God" that it's evident
you're not a Christian in any sense of the word.

[Stephen M. Adams]

Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> writes:
>Learner wrote:

>>>recognized the Apostolic succession,
>>
>> Wrong again. The myth of apostolic succession first appeared in a
>> rather crude form in a document called 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."
>>
>> "Overseers" is "episkopos," which later became the term "bishop."
>
>Another of your lies, and I'll keep reminding you as long as you decide
>to play stupid. Read Chapter 15 of the Didache...
>
>"Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore,
>for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and
>not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to
>you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them,
>for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.
>And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in
>the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one
>speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your
>prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel
>of our Lord."
>
>Bishops were not a later creation, but existed in the first century!

No kidding. And Biblical to boot. Learner must have missed this:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in
order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I
directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the
husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused
of issipation or rebellion.

For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not
self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not
pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving
what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding
fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching,
so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to
refute those who contradict.
[ Titus 1:5-9, NASB ]

Of course, the King James is much clearer on the second paragraph.
It reads "For a bishop must be blameless..." Now, since Titus was
tasked by Paul (an Apostle) to appoint elders (presbyters) in every
city, and to watch over them, AND is called "episkops" what can Titus
be except the very model of a Metropolitan ArchBishop!

We have all the ingredients of apostolc succession - appointment and
tasking by an Apostle, appointing of presbyters (which in english
became prester, which is our modern word 'priest'), and keeping of
order in a region.

The Scriptures are quite clear.

[Joe Orthodox]

Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> writes:
>
>>Learner wrote:
>
>
>>>>recognized the Apostolic succession,
>>>
>>>Wrong again. The myth of apostolic succession first appeared in a
>>>rather crude form in a document called 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."
>>>
>>>"Overseers" is "episkopos," which later became the term "bishop."
>>
>>Another of your lies, and I'll keep reminding you as long as you decide
>>to play stupid. Read Chapter 15 of the Didache...
>>
>>"Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore,
>>for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and
>>not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to
>>you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them,
>>for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.
>>And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in
>>the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one
>>speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your
>>prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel
>>of our Lord."
>>
>>Bishops were not a later creation, but existed in the first century!
>
>
> No kidding. And Biblical to boot. Learner must have missed this:

I doubt he missed it, since I and others reminded him of it. What he's
done in past harangues is reference this passage because he thinks it
commands our clergy to be married (when in fact a basic level of reading
comprehension shows it is forbidding remarriage, a rule Orthodox
maintain today for its clergy, unlike our supposedly Bible-only
friends), but what's interesting is that I challenged him to post the
passage which he refused to do, obviously for the reason you've just
noted - it talks about authority figures in the "early" Church. And it
obviously doesn't forbid celibacy, an idiotic claim given that Christ,
Paul and other Apostles were celibate.

> For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in
> order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I
> directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the
> husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused
> of issipation or rebellion.
>
> For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not
> self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not
> pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving
> what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding
> fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching,
> so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to
> refute those who contradict.
> [ Titus 1:5-9, NASB ]
>
> Of course, the King James is much clearer on the second paragraph.
> It reads "For a bishop must be blameless..." Now, since Titus was
> tasked by Paul (an Apostle) to appoint elders (presbyters) in every
> city, and to watch over them, AND is called "episkops" what can Titus
> be except the very model of a Metropolitan ArchBishop!
>
> We have all the ingredients of apostolc succession - appointment and
> tasking by an Apostle, appointing of presbyters (which in english
> became prester, which is our modern word 'priest'), and keeping of
> order in a region.
>
> The Scriptures are quite clear.
>
> -Stephen

Not only that, when one reads the Fathers, the standard by which they
determined the credibility of another writer or holy book was its
Apostolic authority within the Church. Lerner apparently believes there
were a bunch of churches out there, with different lines of authority
and conflicting theologies, and Orthodoxy just fell out like a ball on
the roulette wheel. I challenged him to tell us the names of these
other churches, their members, their bishops, their doctrines, etc., and
he ran from it. The truth is that there was one Church in "early"
Christianity, and only heretical sects on the side who were condemned by
Paul and others. If he believes his fundie co-religionists can claim
kinship with those sects condemned by the Apostles, by all means I
encourage it :-)

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

Aside from your normal bitterness and nastiness, you have added very
little to the discussion. But then again, dialogue is not the reason
your here, is it?

<un-Christian insults snipped>

> They date to "early" Christianity, which was your original litmus
test,
> right? They date to the second century, which is about, oh, 1700
years
> before the invention of your Calvary Church's rapture theology. Or
1400
> years before sola scriptura.

You are dodging the issue at hand, but what else is new?

Can you, or anyone else defend the Orthodox making and veneration of
icons from the NT, the writings of earliest Christianity, and the early
Fathers? It should be a simple matter if Orthodoxy is a straight shot
all the way back to Christ.

Neither you nor anyone else has, or can, do this. That is why you
throw out a lot silly arguments to defend your icons.

> > The sad fact of the matter is that the veneration of icons has no
> > support in the New Testament. The practice of making and
venerating
> > icons arose over the centuries as the result of the
intrusion/inclusion
> > of Pagan practices into Christianity. There is a lot of testimony

> Oh, isn't this entertaining. You were beaten black and blue by
Leonidas
> over this, and I proved to you that Jews were creating icons. What
do
> you do? Take a few days off hoping Leonidas would go away, then
start
> back at square one. Nice try, but it won't work. Here's your
spanking
> again...

Wrong again. Can you cite ANY historian who claims that these were
icons - in the same sense of an Orthodox icon? Can you? Even Orthodox
scholars such as Ouspensky and Lossky make no such claim.

> We have early Christian images of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints,
and
> even Jewish mosaics of King David and the prophets.
>
> Duro-Europos, home of many Jewish and Christian mosaics, is in Syria
and
> had a thriving Jewish community. There are 3rd century mosaics of
King
> David, events from Ezekiel, and nearly thirty others in the ancient
> synagogue located in this town. There is the floor at Hammas
Tiberias
> (350 CE) with Jewish images. Here you can view a painting of the
> sacrifice of Isaac in the Beth Alpha Synagogue from the 500's:
> http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/cja/Index_pres/Beit-Alpha%20Isaac.htm. And
in
> the middle ages we see vibrant manuscript artwork among the Jewish
> community in Europe.

You have been corrected on this before. Sir Steven Runciman [whose
views are repeated in Alexander Schmemann's "The Historical Road of
Orthodoxy," and John Meyendorff's "The Orthodox Church" said
["Byzantine Style and Civilization"]:

"The earliest Christians took little interest in art. They were
largely influenced by the Stoics, to whom art was irrelevant, and they
were under the shadow of Mosaic Law, with its stern ban on idols and
graven images."

So you are at odds with your Church's scholars. However, you are too
thick-headed and arrogant to understand.

> Let's take a look at the "early" art of Christians in the
catacombs...

None of these date to Apostolic times.

> Then we can see with our own eyes how similar the figures are in
these
> 2nd and 3rd century images in the catacombs resemble our icons of
today.
> These "early" icons bear the same resemblance of modern icons:

None of which date to within 200 years of the life of any Apostle.

> > against images in early Christianity and this was a huge
embarrassment
> > to the iconophiles in the iconoclastic controversy. On many
occassions

> Leonidas challenged you to produce this "lot" of testimony... what
did
> you do? Snipped and ran as usual.

Eusibeus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Clement of Alexandria and others
opposed images. The iconoduls could find no support for their position
from the works of the early Fathers of the Church, and this was a great
embarrassment for them.

> > and in several thread, I challenged anyone to demonstrate that icon
> > veneration was a practice that could be traced to the teachings of
the
> > Apostles or of the earliest Church. If Orthodoxy is indeed a
straight

> No, you were challenged to produce evidence that they were not

> venerated, and now you come back with a tu quoque.....

Prove that they were NOT venerated? This is logically impossible!
Prove to me that there are/were no unicorns. If they were venerated,
then why don't we have any written evidence of this practice?

I am not asking for much here - just a clear and simple statement in
the NT saying "Make and venerate icons of Jesus, or of his mother, or
of saints." I would be impressed if Ignatius of Antioch said
something like: "Take care of my icons while I am gone," or perhaps a
line from Justin Martyr saying, "And then we venerate the icons."

But there is nothing to support icon veneration as a part of earliest
Christianity. Nothing, zero, zilch and all of your gas [must be from
the cabbage] and insults cannot change the facts.

> > and unchanging stream flowing from the Apostles, then one should be
> > able to trace this crucial practice and dogma of the Orthodox
Church
> > directly back to the source.

> Strawman. We never said practices stayed the same, and you've been
> spanked too many times to count over this, Stevie. The theology of
> icons, which is the Incarnation, does in fact stream back to the
> Apostles. When this is proven to you by referencing the Gospel of
John
> and other NT material, you attack the veracity of those holy books.
> Really, Stevie, who have you convinced with these harangues?

Once again, you disagree with your Church:

"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." (http://www.acrod.org/orthodox1.html)

> > I have yet to see this. I have heard a lot of rationalizations,
rants,
> > dodges, and insults, but have yet to see the proof.

> All you've provided is a continued stealing of my lines. It's become
so
> bad that you can't post a single message to this list anymore without

> using my words.

And you continue to dodge issues that I doubt you understand.

> > As for your early images, John of Damascus supported icon painting
and
> > veneration, not on early Christianity, but on the wrong assumption
that
> > people knew what Jesus looked like.

> No, his argument was supported on the theology of the Incarnation.

John argued that since God became incarnate, he could be depicted in
the form of Jesus. Neither John, nor anyone else, had the slightest
idea what Jesus looked like so John believe that an accurate image of
Jesus existed by accepting the legend of the Abgar image - which I
doubt that know you anything about and are too lzay to research.

If we do not have an accurate image of Jesus, one might venerate a
picture of anyone since the "closeness" of the images to the prototype
is of no concern.

> > see that no one had the foggiest idea what Jesus looked like. All
> > images of Jesus are creations of human imagination.

> But you contradict yourself with the next paragraph...

Well, let's see.

> > That is why the earliest images of Jesus show him as a beardless
young
> > Jewish man, as a magician, as an Apollo-like man, as a variant of
> > Jupiter Olympus, and in the Semitic form as triangular-faced man
with a
> > short beard and kinky hair.

> Beardless Jewish man??? How do you know it's a depiction of a Jewish

> man? How do you know it is Jesus since you've claimed you don't know

> what He looked like, and don't form visual images of Him in your
mind?

My original statement stands. The variety of ways in which Jesus was
depicted prove that no one knew what he looked like. In fact, although
they did not believe in making images, Justin Martyr and Clement of
Alexandria [who lived in the 2nd century AD] believed that Jesus was
ugly after considering the "Suffering Servant" in Isaiah 55:2. Are
there any icons of an ugly Jesus in your Church?

As far as knowing whether an image is a Jewish man, that is relatively
easy if you know anything about Greco-Roman art - which you clearly do
not.

> >>But in the first century, there was no Bible, no sola scriptura.

> > So, you do not consider the Old Testament as part of the Bible? Or
did
> > the Orthodox Chruch give Moses the Torah on Mount Sinai ?

> Not by itself. The OT alone won't teach you a whit about the
> crucifixion, resurrection, the Trinity, what's necessary for our
> salvation, Christ's teachings, His nature, His mission for all of
> mankind, His return, or anything else that is identifiable as
Christian.

But that was not what you said, you are changing the subject because
you have lost the debate. Also, in your small mind, what is the
purpose of the OT? What about all of Matthew's creative
"interpretations" of OT prophecy?

> Nice try at a diversion. But Kerby's attempt here was to claim a
> particular Orthodox belief wasn't present in the first century, and I

> merely pointed out the foundation of his own theology wasn't there.
> What do you do? Jump in with a lame attempt to divert the
discussion.

Kerby was correct.

> > The earliest Christians were Jews who worshipped G_d on Saturday in
the

> What's this "G_d" thing? Did you forget how to spell God? Is your
> conversion to fundamentalist Judeo-Islam finally complete??? Answer
the
> question, Stevie. You knew how to spell God's name not long ago; it
> really begs the question why you've changed your spelling habits.

I will spell G_d any way I please. If you don't like, then don't look
at it.

> > synagogues. Aside from believing that Jesus was the Messiah, they
> > looked and acted like any other Jew of their day.

> They believed Jesus was the Son of God. They believed He rose from
the
> dead. They believed He was born of a virgin. The believed He would
> return again from heaven. Oh, how funny that you ignore the obvious,
or
> rather it's sad how you deny the items I just listed by attacking the

> veracity of the Bible, while then hypocritically challenging others
to
> prove something according to the Bible alone, a set of documents you
> hold low regard for.

The Didache, which is as old or perhaps older than some of the Gospel
accounts, mentions none of these things. A bit odd, don't you think.
You can't zone out of an Orthodox Liturgy for more than a few seconds
without being reminded about the eternal state of Mary's hymen. Yet
the Didache, Paul, and Mark don't even mention Mary's virginity!

> > However, we can see from the Didache that their Litury was nothing
like
> > your Byzantine mongrel Church's Liturgy.

> If you really believe that, then I challenge you to print as many
copies
> of the Didache and distribute them to your Calvary Chapel friends.
The
> Liturgy in the Didache includes fasting, repentance, communion, etc.
is
> what you see in Orthodoxy today, and not your charismaniac cult. It
was
> very similar to the Jewish Liturgy, and the Orthodox Liturgy
maintains
> such striking similarities.

Amazing how you must attack "heretics" to defend your "true" Chruch -
which in now way follows the Didache.

> > Of adults who had to fast for two days. Also, the early Christians
> > used running water, as seen in the Didache.

> Wrong. It says nothing about adults, which you were spanked on
before.
> Keep at, Stevie. I'll be here to remind you of your errors. As far
> as running water is concerned, this is what it says...

So, infants fast for two days and receive instruction? Get real.

> "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: 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. But if you have no living water,
baptize
> into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in
warm.
> But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head
into
> the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism
let
> the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you
shall
> order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

Which would leave out infants.

> Don't tell me that your Calvary Chapel baptises its members at some
> rapids in Colorado. And don't tell me you guys fast. If your
minister
> ever asked the members of your cult to fast, they'd probably scratch
> their heads and say, "What's the hurry?"

And when your Church tells you to fast, you simply abstain from certain
foods, and still eat. Fasting means living without food.

> > By not eating anything, as opposed to the modern Orthodox practice
of
> > abstinence from one thing or another - depending on the day.

> Where does it say not "anything?" Where did you read it in the
Didache,
> Stevie? Why do you continue playing dumb and assuming others in the
> list won't check the material for themselves?

When the Jews fast for Yom Kippur, they eat nothing. When Hindus fast
for Shiva-puja, they eat nothing. When Muslims fast, they eat nothing
- at least during the day. When Orthodox fast, many go to
all-you-can-eat seafood buffets! Even at my old Church they have
"fish-frys" every Friday during lent - in spite of the fact that sea
creatures with spines should not be eaten at this time!

Orthodox piety is a joke and you and I both know it!

> > Not so fast. In the Didache the Eucharist is very different that
what
> > is found in later Orthodoxy. There is no connection between the
> > Eucharist and the death of Jesus, and there is hint of the concept
of
> > "real presence."
>
> You again make the illogical mistake of presuming this document is an

> all-inclusive description of the Liturgy and beliefs of the
Christians
> using it, another tell-tell sign you've no training as a historian.

No, it is proof that I am an historian. The Didache shows us what a
very early community of believers believed. I never claimed that it
was all inclusive, nor do I make this claim for Paul or for the
Gospels.

I read these sources for what they are and for what they say. I read
them objectively and see the development of Christian doctrine and
belief over time. This requires intellect - which you clearly lack.
Instead, your feeble mind must rely on what the Church tells you to
believe. So, when you read the Didache, and see that there is no hint
that Communion represents the body and blood of Christ, you simply
assume that this is what they *really* believed since that is what your
Church requires. Paul, of course, *really* believed in the virgin
birth and the fact that he makes no mention of it is proof in your
mind!

I guess that life is easier if we let others do our thinking for us and
tell us that everything is OK if we listen. I am simply not that weak.

> Which proves that the document isn't inclusive of ALL Christian
beliefs.
> But the material in the Didache IS a subset of what can be seen as
> Orthodox. It has no resemblance at all of your charismaniac cult, or

> whatever Christ-denying cult you've recently converted to.

I never said that it was all inclusive, that is your strawman.
Whether, or not, other Churches follow the Didache, yours most
certainly does not. Therefore, like all other Churches, yours is
nothing more than the historical evolution and development of a few
early ideas.

> > "Overseers" is "episkopos," which later became the term "bishop."

> Another of your lies, and I'll keep reminding you as long as you
decide
> to play stupid. Read Chapter 15 of the Didache...

Lies are you field of expertise.

> Bishops were not a later creation, but existed in the first century!

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.

> > Clement's statement is found in a letter of rebuke which required
some
> > authority - which was found in the myth that authority came down
> > through the years from the Apostles. Clement planted the seed that
> > mutated Christianity into a hierarchal system that was very
different
> > from the arrangement found in the Didache.

> Read your spanking above. I hope you continue this line of thought.
> It's fun watching you struggle at the bottom of the barrel.

Read the historical record above.

> > True. In fact, most Orthodox lands did not even have mass produced
> > Bibles until very recently - and they were mostly
printed/distributed
> > by Protestants.

> Orthodox Catholics gave you your Bible to mass produce.

Really? The Orthodox Church was around in the 4th century? This is
really silly! The Roman Catholics, Copts and Assyrians could easily
make the same claim as you.

> The eastern lands had mass produced Bibles since the printing press,
but
> you miss the obvious (again).

Nonsense. The Russian Orthodox Church didn't translate the entire
Bible into Russian until the 16th century! I most certainly did not
hand them out to the peasants.

> You've placed a huge importance on owning a
> personal NT canon (a canon which you can't define, and run from every

> time challenged, and which books you attack at will) to the EXCLUSION
of
> everything else, and yet can't find any Scriptural basis for such an
> unbalanced emphasis. In fact, the fruits of this practice are
apparent
> - 30,000 and growing sects who can't agree on the plain meaning of
> Scripture. Orthodox, on the other hand, have a consistent teaching
on
> Christ and soteriology. That's what's important.

Sure, I can tell what the NT is, just as I can tell you what the Qur'an
is, or the Gita. It is what it is.

You still haven't told me which Orthodox Canon I should read - the
Slavonic, Greek, or Ethiopian - all of which have a number of
additional books. An odd situation for the Church that created the
Bible! But then again, your Church set the date for Christmas, but
can't decide whether it is December 25 or January 7!

> > I have discussed that fact that, in the Didache, there is no "body
and
> > blood of Christ" in the Eucharist. This alone serously calls into

> There's a body and blood of Christ in Scripture, and in "early"
Church
> Father writings. Go ahead, post your canned talking points claiming
> certain Fathers didn't believe in the presence. I'll expose your
idiocy
> again, "Learner."

That is because the Gospel accounts were written be different people
over the course of time for different audiences. The symbolic aspect
of Communion became important as Christianity was morphing due to
contact with Pagan influences. The Didache is very old, and says
nothing of the body and blood of Christ.

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11 that communion is a rememberance, not
an literal re-enactment of Jesus' death. According to the Didache, the
first century Church also believed it to be symbolic. Mark records the
words of invocation but ends with Jesus calling the wine "the fruit of
the vine".

> > But wait, there is so much more. The Didache does not mention the
> > creation or veneration of icons [which was a later practice adopted

> It doesn't mention the NT canon, sola scriptura, or anything else
that
> resembles your Calvary Church cult, or whatever Christ-denying sect
> you've apparently joined.

Exactly, all were later developments. Hopefully, you are learning
something here.

> > from the Pagans], there is no baptism of infants, there was
preference
> > for flowing water instead of water from a receptacle, there were

> Where does it say infants, Stevie? Where does it say adults? Where
is
> this prohibition anywhere in Scripture or the Didache??? You can't
> produce it, and in fact such a prohibition is believed only by a
small
> number of fundie sects. Most Protestants know better.

Infants don't usually fast for 2 days or receive instruction.

But then again Joey, your Church requires that infants be baptized and
anyone who objects to the practice is outside of the Church. So how
can your very human organization require something that the Bible does
not?

> > "Prophets" and "Apostles" who were later removed from the church
> > hierarchy, there was no veneration of Mary or of Saints, there is
no

> Your proof???

Do you have "Prophets" and "Apostles" in your Church? When did Paul
tell you that you could do away with these offices?

> > mention of the virgin birth [much like Paul's Epistles and the
Gospel

> The Virgin Birth is in the Gospels, Stevie. You're getting boring
with
> your argumentum ex silentio. Please do us all a favor and admit
you've
> left the Christian fold. It puts your harangues in context.

You should read the Bible instead of repeating your childish harangues.

What Paul DID SAY is far more interesting that what he did not say.

Paul said that Jesus was born of a woman - not a virgin. Paul said
that Jesus "was of the seed of David according to the flesh". In other
words, Jesus was a biological descendant of David - which would have
been impossible if he were the son of Joseph by adoption instead of by
blood. Mary was not a "Davidid" according to the mutually
contradictory genealogies in the two Gospel accounts. In any case,
descent at that time was traced through the male and not the female.

So, you tell me what Paul really believed!

> > of Mark], there was no doctrine of the atonement, there was no
> > hierarchical appointment of bishops.

> Note how you don't mention the Gospel of Matthew. If the NT book is
> inconvenient, you omit it. And that leads to your refusal do define
the
> exact content of Scripture, and the method you would use.

No, I read each book for what is says and not for what a cult wants me
to believe. Matthew was written after Mark and he cut and pasted a lot
of stuff from Mark.

> > The one area where the Didache is in agreement with Orthodox
Canons,
> > was to not give up slavery. Slavery is still perfectly proper

> What??? Is there something in the Didache about "bondsmen" that's
not
> in Paul's writings??? Show us your quotes, Stevie. I'll show you
> Paul's words, following which I'm sure you'll attack Paul in your
> harangue of the day.

Read the Pedalion - if you even know what it is! Then we will discuss
this.

> > according to Orthodox Canons. Even modern copies of the Pedalion
["The
> > Rudder"] make a number of Church declarations that accept the
> > institution of slavery as a matter of fact.

> Not true, and when you were cornered on this before, you snipped and
> ran. You post in this list under the dishonest nick of "Learner"
when
> in fact it's a very thin veneer covering a cynical hatred of
Orthodoxy,
> and rational thought for that matter, and it's won you no converts.
> How's it feel being a failure, Stevie? You're probably used to it,
> given you're a professional student living off of Papa's money.

Once again, insults instead of answers! Such are the spiritual fruits
that Orthodoxy has produced in you.

> > These men lived in a mixed multi-cultural society where
> > they saw Pagan practices, such as the veneration of images. They
would
> > probably be more horrified in your Church.

> Not at all, considering Jews in the area were creating the same
images.

You are totally ignorant, or you are a liar - I suspect a bit of both.
Dura Europus dates from around 265 A.D.. So, how old were the
Apostles, 200+ years old? Read your own claims! YOU said that these
date from the 3rd century A.D., now you claim that they existed in the
first century?

> > The disciples of Jesus did not agree on who he was and what he
said.

> Not after the Resurrection. Prove otherwise. But alas, you run in
> another direction aftet dropping a baseless assertion...

That is easy to do. I already demonstrated the persistent pushing back
of the sonship of Jesus in time, from Paul to Mark to John. Also, the
Christology of John's Gospel, in fact entire Gospel according to John,
is very different from the other Gospels. John even places the
cleansing of the Temple in a completely different chronological context
than the synoptics.

> > The whole corpus of Church Tradition and the absurd notion of
> > "apostolicity" was a later creation of a very human organization
who
> > wanted to read its doctrines back into time - regardless of the
> > evidence.

> Tell us, when was it created? You've made a positive assertion.
Stop
> running from the challenges and hard questions, "Learner."

It was created over time and with great influence from the Byzantine
state. However, whatever the Church comes up with, it attempts to
project it back into time to make doctrine appear to be seamless.

The Church then destroys/kills anything/anyone that is in opposition to
whatever innovations are introduced. For example, the Old Believer
Avvakum was murdered for persisting in his beliefs - which up to the
time of Nikon's revisions - had been considered 100% Orthodox. In this
case, the Russian state was nothing more than the persecuting arm of
the Orthodox Church.

> > Anyone who has ever read the Gospels can see that Mark's view of
Jesus
> > was completely different from that of the Gospel of John. In fact,
if

> Which means... nothing. The fallacy of argumentum ex silentio is a
> labelled a fallacy for a reason, Stevie. Go ask one of your Muslim
> roommates to explain it to you.

Which means everything if your mind can function properly. Mark wrote
what he believed, not what John believed, or what doctrines your
Byzantine mongrel church cooked up centuries in the future.

> > we look at the NT in chronological order, we find that according to
the

> Chronological order doesn't determine credibility or accuracy. The
> later books of John, someone who knew Christ personally, are vastly
more
> reliable and credible than earlier books by someone who didn't.

Your community college level education is showing. What chronology
shows is the evolution of Christian beliefs over time. The
Church/Christianity wasn't set up "as is" by G_d - as your Church would
love to con us into believing.

> > Paul, Jesus became God's son at the resurrection. According to
Mark
> > [the earliest Gospel account], Jesus became God's son at his
baptism.

> There's no agreement among scholars that it's the earliest account.
In
> fact, the Jesus Seminar scholarship, which you're so fond of picking
> from when it's convenient for your harangue, has really fell by the
> wayside and been discredited in scholarly circles. You're well
behind
> the curve, Stevie.

There is agreement among scholars that Mark is the earliest Gospel.
The only major scholar who disagrees is G. A. Wells - who believes that
the entire life of Christ is based on legend.

> > According to Luke, Jesus became God's son at his birth. In the
end,

> So easy to cut-n-past the talking points, but so much harder to prove
it
> by cross-referencing the material in Scripture, eh?

Don't be lazy, look it up for yourself.

> > John, [whose Gospel took much longer than the other Gospels to be
> > accepted by early Christians], Jesus is the pre-existent "Logos".
So
> > even in the Gospels - the earliest accounts of Christ's life -
there is
> > a persistent pushing back of the sonship of Jesus in time.

> And this harangue is further proof you're not a Christian.

Whether or not this is the case, it is historical fact.

> > Also, the Didache [and I have no idea why you Orthodox point to
this
> > document since it blows a huge hole in your Church's false
historical

> Stealing my lines again...

Why? You have nothing intelligent to say.

> > claims] clearly holds a subordinationist view of Jesus. Justin
Martyr,

> That's not "clear" at all. Again, so easy to repeat the pamphlet
points
> than read a real history book, and employ sound logic.

It is perfectly clear. Read these sources for yourself and leave off
the blinders that your cult wants you to wear.

> > who you called to your Church's defense, also had a
subordinationist
> > view of Jesus very similar to that of the Didache.

> I challenge you to copy the Didache and distribute it to your cult,
> Stevie. How many of your uneducate fundie co-religionists would even

> know what the Didache is? If you truly believe it's magic bullet for

> Pentecostal fundamentalism, then why is it and Patristics not
required
> reading for those churches? You know the answer.

LOL! As if all Orthodox are experts in Church history!

> > Once again Joey, there is no "true Church". All groups contain
some

> Once again, you deny Christ and His words in Scripture. Not a
surprise,
> given that you don't believe in a Christ. And I'll continue raising
> this fact because you've dropped enough attacks on Christ, most of
the
> NT, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the authority of Scripture as the
> Word of God, and even the normal spelling of "God" that it's evident
> you're not a Christian in any sense of the word.

I am not attacking anything. I am simply looking at things with an
open mind, which is not chained down by some cult mindset. If you have
any intelligent responses [which you have not had to this point in
time] let me know.

Learner

[Learner]

v1...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Unfortunately many protestants seem to deny, or are not aware, of any
> Church history prior to around the time of the reformation.

Perhaps, but most Orthodox are not schooled in Church history either.

> A good example of this is many protestant assertions that Mary is not
> the "Mother of God", but yet the mother of Jesus. I suppose that
they
> attempt to "preserve the divinity of Jesus", but the logical
conclusion
> of this argument is either that Mary is not the mother of Jesus at
all,
> -or- that Jesus is actually two beings that coexist in the same place
> and time - one divine, and one human. Add to that the hidden
> assumption that a mother creates their child!

The problem with the term "Mother of G_d" is that it suggests that the
Eternal G_d had a mother from whom He originated in the same way that I
originated from my mother. There is also a problem in conferring
various epithets on humans which were not written in the Bible. Would
you protest
against my calling John the Baptist the cousin of G_d? The reasoning is
the same.

> Another example: denying the veneration of Icons. Following this to
> its conclusion ends up denying the incarnation of Christ - much the
> same way as in the previous example.

The conclusion does not follow the argument. Millions of people
do/have accepted the incarnation without ever venerating an icon.
There are three problems that I personally have with this argument:

1. The Orthodox notion that an icon visibly represents Christ's
humanity, which is somehow united with an invisible divinity, is not
consistent with the incarnation. It is, in fact, a denial of the union
of human and divine.

2. If you claim that the Incarnation allows us to depict G_d, then this
suggests that Christ was a created being. While Christ's body was
created, making an image of Christ's body that is not directly united
to the uncreated divine leads right back to a Nestorian division of the
natures.

3. For a painter to unite the divinity of Christ to wood would
essentially re-incarnate Christ in a different body. The production of
icons deny the finality, as well as the sufficiency, of the original
incarnation. Icons also the reality of the resurrection by uniting
Jesus with corruptible matter.

> Or, asserting that the Pope of Rome is, even for a short time,
> infallable: this causes severe issues with freedom of choice.

The Orthodox fall into the same error when they pronounce their Church
infallable in spite of its history of heretical Patriarches.

> At the root (er, pardon the pun): the branch theory seems to view
each
> doctrine as loosely related to any other; a set of 'truths', if you
> will, rather than all being part of ONE truth.

What do you mean by "one" truth? Christianity has evolved over
history. Imagine walking into a Christian service in 50 A.D. and
telling the people there about the "hypostatic union" or the trinity.
They would have had no clue what you were talking about.

Learner

[Learner]

v1...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Zlatoust wrote:

> Ahh... you are proving my point. Here we see an introduction of the
> "invisible church doctrine" - something that is necessitated by the
> branch theory doctrine.

I have a problem with the entire concept of a "visible Church". If we
call any regular assembly of Christians the "visible Church", then I
have no problems with this concept since there is indeed a Church that
is visible.

However, if one wishes to narrow down a "true" visible Church, defining
it as one that somehow matches that which was handed down from the
Apostles, and one led "into all truth" by G_d, then there is a problem.

According to this measure, only a handful of groups are even candidates
for the title, so where is the visible Church?

Being in a hyper-Orthodox group, we can count out Rome. What about the
other ancient "Orthodox" Sees - are they the visible Church? Are
Churches located in predominantly Muslim countries [and the Jewish
State of Israel], where even most of the minority Christian population
does no recognize these Sees [i.e. the Copts, Assyrians, Baptists, etc]
the "visible" Church? What about the Orthodox Churches here in New
York, where nearly 1/2 dozen Bishops claim jurisdiction in violation of
Orthodox Canons?

Learner

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

> No, it died out when the Church said circumcision wasn't required for

> gentile converts. You seem so saddened that Christianity became a
world
> religion rather than an obscure Jewish sect.

No, it died out when the Jewish believers died out.

> > The funny thing is that most Orthodox would call these "minor"
issues,
> > yet they have, at times caused schisms in Orthodoxy. At one point
in
> > time, there were 2 Greek Orthodox Cathedrals here in New York which
> > split over calendars!

> The calendar issue isn't doctrinal.

Show me where I said that it was a doctrinal issue. Your level of
argumentation is infantile, at best and largely dishonest. When one
must lie, and attempt to put words in another's mouth, to defend their
belief system, then that belief system probably isn't worth much.

I said that the Orthodox consider it a "minor" issue, not a doctrinal
issue. However, it is a matter of historical record that this "minor"
issue casued major problems, including a schism in the Greek Orthodox
Church here in New York. In fact, St. Irene's, which is up in Queens,
was once a break away Cathedral over this issue.

Clearly you cannot address the issue at hand, yet you will most likely
come up with another strawman.

Learner

[Learner]

Stephen M. Adams wrote:

> >Bishops were not a later creation, but existed in the first century!

> No kidding. And Biblical to boot. Learner must have missed this:

But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox Bishop?
Let's see.....

> For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in
> order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I
> directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the
> husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused
> of issipation or rebellion.

Well now. Paul said that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, yet
your Church says that a Bishop must be the husband of no wife. You are
comparing apples and oranges.

> For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not
> self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not
> pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving
> what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding
> fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching,
> so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to
> refute those who contradict.
> [ Titus 1:5-9, NASB ]

Of course the Church had leaders. See my early post on how these
offices evolved with some disappearing over time.

> Of course, the King James is much clearer on the second paragraph.
> It reads "For a bishop must be blameless..." Now, since Titus was
> tasked by Paul (an Apostle) to appoint elders (presbyters) in every
> city, and to watch over them, AND is called "episkops" what can Titus
> be except the very model of a Metropolitan ArchBishop!

Come on now, that is a huge leap of the imagination to equate a first
century Bishop with a modern Metropolitan. Early Bishops were elected
by their congregations. When the Byzantine Empire made the Church
"official", the Emperor appointed Bishops. After Nicea II, Bishops
elected other Bishops. Today, the Turkish Ministry of Religious
Affairs calls the shots. By the way, in the early church there was no
"rank" distinction between the presbyter and episkopos.

So, once again, you compare apples and oranges.

> We have all the ingredients of apostolc succession - appointment and
> tasking by an Apostle, appointing of presbyters (which in english
> became prester, which is our modern word 'priest'), and keeping of
> order in a region.

You have no ingredients of Apostolic succession at all. Show me one
passage in Scripture where anyone, who was appointed to a Church
office, was called a successor to any Apostle. No amount of Orthodox
scripture twisting can show this!

And, who is the true Apostolic successor in New York City. Tell me.
There are nearly 1/2 dozen Orthodox Bishops which claim this city as
their "region". This is a clear violation of Church Canon Law. your
Church cannot even follow the rules that it created for itself!

> The Scriptures are quite clear.

Indeed they are. There is no mention of Apostolic succession or of a
monarchical Bishop in the Bible. These were invented later in Church
history and for purely human-political reasons.

I Clement, 42:7 used the term "episkopos," and this term later took on
our modern definition of "Bishop." Clement used this term in a long
letter of rebuke for which he needed some level of authority. Clement
attempted to create authority for his letter by creating the myth that
authority came down through the years directly from the Apostles.
Clement's ideas helped to transform the organization of the Church into
a hierarchy unlike the simpler arrangement found in the Didache.

Learner

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

> I doubt he missed it, since I and others reminded him of it. What
he's
> done in past harangues is reference this passage because he thinks it

> commands our clergy to be married (when in fact a basic level of
reading
> comprehension shows it is forbidding remarriage, a rule Orthodox
> maintain today for its clergy, unlike our supposedly Bible-only
> friends), but what's interesting is that I challenged him to post the

> passage which he refused to do, obviously for the reason you've just
> noted - it talks about authority figures in the "early" Church. And
it
> obviously doesn't forbid celibacy, an idiotic claim given that
Christ,
> Paul and other Apostles were celibate.

As usual, when you cannot answer an issue, you change the subject,
believing that being on the attack makes you look good. It really
makes you look ignorant.

Your Church says [regardless of what Paul said] that a Bishop must be
the husband of no wife. Your Church did this for very earthly reasons.
In fact, the local Spanish Council of Elvira (306 A.D.) first imposed
celibacy on bishops, as well as priests and deacons. Notice the
language concerning children:

"We decree that all bishops, priests, deacons, and all clerics engaged
in the ministry are forbidden entirely to live with their wives and to
beget children: whoever shall do so will be deposed from the clerical
dignity."

In the east, 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 that families could inherit Church property.
Therefore measures were taken to prevent this from happening.

As for the sins of other Churches/clergy, perhaps you should read up on
what is happening to the "Holy Church" in Greece. Also, what about the
Orthodox Bishop who was busted [a pun is intended] for being drunk and
feeling up a woman in a Windsor Casino?

> Not only that, when one reads the Fathers, the standard by which they

> determined the credibility of another writer or holy book was its
> Apostolic authority within the Church.

Huh? I think that you have it backwards. Church doctrine evolved over
time under political influence. The Church attempts to support
whatever it comes up with by looking for those among the Fathers who
agree with whatever the Church wishes to pass off as "truth". Is
Tertullian a Father? What about Irenaeus, Origin, or Justin? If you
agree that Justin is a Chruch Father, then do you accept his statement
that the Jordan broke forth in flames when Jesus came to it for
baptism? If you do not accept that statement, then how can you consider
him a Father? Can he be mistaken in one thing, but not in another?

Also, why has the Church never created an official list of Church
Fathers?

Dodge away Joey.

> Lerner apparently believes there
> were a bunch of churches out there, with different lines of authority

> and conflicting theologies, and Orthodoxy just fell out like a ball
on
> the roulette wheel.

There were a number of different groups who held very different beliefs
about who Jesus was and what Jesus said. As I have shown, and you have
dodged, the authors of the Gospels disagreed about when Christ became
the Son of G_d.

> I challenged him to tell us the names of these
> other churches, their members, their bishops, their doctrines, etc.,
and
> he ran from it.

I never run. There were Adoptionists [including the author of Mark]
and Gnostics very early in Church history. In fact, the Gnostic
Valentinus had been taught by Theudas, who was a disciple of Paul.

> The truth is that there was one Church in "early"
> Christianity, and only heretical sects on the side who were condemned
by
> Paul and others. If he believes his fundie co-religionists can claim

> kinship with those sects condemned by the Apostles, by all means I
> encourage it :-)

Even before Constantine became "Christian" he killed off the Donatists.
Christianity was never monolithic, nor should it ever be.

Learner

[Stephen M. Adams]

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:

>> >Bishops were not a later creation, but existed in the first century!
>
>> No kidding. And Biblical to boot. Learner must have missed this:
>
>But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox Bishop?
>Let's see.....

Close enough so that the differences are insignificant.

>> For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in
>> order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I
>> directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the
>> husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused
>> of issipation or rebellion.
>
>Well now. Paul said that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, yet
>your Church says that a Bishop must be the husband of no wife. You are
>comparing apples and oranges.

Uhm, no. Please study the original Greek text. It says "man of one
woman" i and this s a description of what it means to be above reproach.
Nothing in the Greek text can be used to *insist* on marraige of bishops.

That said, the Orthodox Church has had married bishops, and Metropolitan
+PHILIP of the Antiochian church is on record as believing that we should
return to the ancient practice.

>> For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not
>> self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not
>> pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving
>> what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding
>> fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching,
>> so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to
>> refute those who contradict.
>> [ Titus 1:5-9, NASB ]
>
>Of course the Church had leaders. See my early post on how these
>offices evolved with some disappearing over time.

Look at exactly what transpires. Look at the authority that Paul
gives to Titus. Look at what he is told to do. It's *exactly* the
role of the Bishop.

>> Of course, the King James is much clearer on the second paragraph.
>> It reads "For a bishop must be blameless..." Now, since Titus was
>> tasked by Paul (an Apostle) to appoint elders (presbyters) in every
>> city, and to watch over them, AND is called "episkops" what can Titus
>> be except the very model of a Metropolitan ArchBishop!
>
>Come on now, that is a huge leap of the imagination to equate a first
>century Bishop with a modern Metropolitan. Early Bishops were elected
>by their congregations. When the Byzantine Empire made the Church
>"official", the Emperor appointed Bishops. After Nicea II, Bishops
>elected other Bishops. Today, the Turkish Ministry of Religious
>Affairs calls the shots.

Funny, I don't recall any representatives of the Turkish government
being at the meeting of the clergy and laity that elected our new
Bishops last year. And I think the people in the OCA and in Russia
would be surprised to hear that Turkey designates their bishops.

You really ought to study a bit more before you open your mouth.

>By the way, in the early church there was no
>"rank" distinction between the presbyter and episkopos.

Look above - the book of Titus clearly shows the role of overseer
as superior - he is appointing presbyters and is not subject to
them in any way.

>So, once again, you compare apples and oranges.

No, you twist to try to avoid the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

>> We have all the ingredients of apostolc succession - appointment and
>> tasking by an Apostle, appointing of presbyters (which in english
>> became prester, which is our modern word 'priest'), and keeping of
>> order in a region.
>
>You have no ingredients of Apostolic succession at all. Show me one
>passage in Scripture where anyone, who was appointed to a Church
>office, was called a successor to any Apostle. No amount of Orthodox
>scripture twisting can show this!

You don't understand what Apostolic Succssion means. It means a
community, laity together with their Bishop, that follow and keep
the teachings of the Apostles. Forget your Western (ie Roman)
notions of titles and nobility. That is NOT what Orthodoxy does
or teaches.

>And, who is the true Apostolic successor in New York City. Tell me.
>There are nearly 1/2 dozen Orthodox Bishops which claim this city as
>their "region". This is a clear violation of Church Canon Law. your
>Church cannot even follow the rules that it created for itself!
>
>> The Scriptures are quite clear.
>
>Indeed they are. There is no mention of Apostolic succession or of a
>monarchical Bishop in the Bible. These were invented later in Church
>history and for purely human-political reasons.

Go back and read Titus. What part of the "overseer" appointing
presbyters and keeping things in order don't you understand.

>I Clement, 42:7 used the term "episkopos," and this term later took on
>our modern definition of "Bishop." Clement used this term in a long
>letter of rebuke for which he needed some level of authority. Clement
>attempted to create authority for his letter by creating the myth that
>authority came down through the years directly from the Apostles.
>Clement's ideas helped to transform the organization of the Church into
>a hierarchy unlike the simpler arrangement found in the Didache.

Hogwash. Clement was dealing with a local problem. The doctrine that
he put forth comes RIGHT from the Scriptures.

[AGGreen]

***More non-sensical arguments from the heretic.

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110481608.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

[AGGreen]

***Learner, you add nothing of substance to any discussion. Your arguments
are so easily refuted over and over again.

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110469203.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[AGGreen]

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110482012.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
> > No, it died out when the Church said circumcision wasn't required for
>
> > gentile converts. You seem so saddened that Christianity became a
> world
> > religion rather than an obscure Jewish sect.
>
> No, it died out when the Jewish believers died out.
>
> > > The funny thing is that most Orthodox would call these "minor"
> issues,
> > > yet they have, at times caused schisms in Orthodoxy. At one point
> in
> > > time, there were 2 Greek Orthodox Cathedrals here in New York which
> > > split over calendars!
>
> > The calendar issue isn't doctrinal.
>
> Show me where I said that it was a doctrinal issue. Your level of
> argumentation is infantile, at best and largely dishonest.

***No, your making a big deal out of a simple statement is INFANTILE.

When one
> must lie, and attempt to put words in another's mouth, to defend their
> belief system, then that belief system probably isn't worth much.

***The statement is NOT a lie. YOU are lying in your lame brained heretical
attempt to make it seem like a lie. Grow the heck up!

>
> I said that the Orthodox consider it a "minor" issue, not a doctrinal
> issue.

***And the answer was a reaffirmation that it is not a doctrinal issue. So
whazt, heretic.

However, it is a matter of historical record that this "minor"
> issue casued major problems, including a schism in the Greek Orthodox
> Church here in New York. In fact, St. Irene's, which is up in Queens,
> was once a break away Cathedral over this issue.

***It also caused several schisms in Greece.

>
> Clearly you cannot address the issue at hand, yet you will most likely
> come up with another strawman.

***Another dumb statement from the heretic.

***BTW, how's Jezebel?

[AGGreen]

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110482733.8...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>
> v1...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Zlatoust wrote:
>
> > Ahh... you are proving my point. Here we see an introduction of the
> > "invisible church doctrine" - something that is necessitated by the
> > branch theory doctrine.
>
> I have a problem with the entire concept of a "visible Church".

***Should we care?

If we
> call any regular assembly of Christians the "visible Church", then I
> have no problems with this concept since there is indeed a Church that
> is visible.

***You are so perceptive!

>
> However, if one wishes to narrow down a "true" visible Church, defining
> it as one that somehow matches that which was handed down from the
> Apostles, and one led "into all truth" by G_d, then there is a problem.

***Ah, Learner is so unlearned that he cannot stand the Truth.

>
>
> According to this measure, only a handful of groups are even candidates
> for the title, so where is the visible Church?

***Yeah, right. What do you know. there is but ONE.

>
> Being in a hyper-Orthodox group, we can count out Rome. What about the
> other ancient "Orthodox" Sees - are they the visible Church? Are
> Churches located in predominantly Muslim countries [and the Jewish
> State of Israel], where even most of the minority Christian population
> does no recognize these Sees [i.e. the Copts, Assyrians, Baptists, etc]
> the "visible" Church? What about the Orthodox Churches here in New
> York, where nearly 1/2 dozen Bishops claim jurisdiction in violation of
> Orthodox Canons?

***This is the most stupid of all arguments. You can do better. Let us know
when you reach puberty...you know...hair in the armpits...the dropping of
those little round things...

[AGGreen]

***This guy is so unChristian that he cannot bring himself to type out
"God." And you want us to respect your views. (thanks for the yuks!)

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110480478.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

[AGGreen]

***Learner, you are using Joe's arguments. How about coming up with a few of
your own?

***BTW, St. Peter was married. And, Learner is correct that early in the
life of the Church bishops were in fact married. At least two of the first
century Bishops of Rome were followed in the papacy by their sons.

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110484643.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[v1...@hotmail.com]

I have no issue with calling John the Baptist the cousin of God. In
fact, it acknowledges the incarnation and is correct in terms of human
relationships and being human. Denying this denys the incarnation.

Next point: did your mother create you? Both body and soul? That is
exactly what you seem to claim happens when your mother 'originates'
you.

If you believe that God creates a person - then one's mother is an
agent of creation but not the creator. With that there is no conflict
with the term "Mother of God" as being the creator is not implied in
the term "Mother".

However, if that is not enough I have but three questions:
(1) Is Jesus God?
(2) Is Jesus one being (both man and God)?
(3) Is Mary the mother of Jesus?

If you have answered "no" to any of these questions, then we have
another topic to discuss. If you answered "yes" to all, then it is
inescapable: the term "Mother of God" is absolutely correct. It is
only if answer "no" to any of those questions that the term cannot be
applied - there are no other options.

-V

[v1...@hotmail.com]

Learner wrote:
> v1...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Another example: denying the veneration of Icons. Following this
to
> > its conclusion ends up denying the incarnation of Christ - much the
> > same way as in the previous example.
>
> The conclusion does not follow the argument. Millions of people
> do/have accepted the incarnation without ever venerating an icon.

I think you have missed the nature of my statement. I did not say "you
MUST venerate icons or you deny the incarnation". My statement is
addresses people who deny the veneration of icons. Deny, as in
consider it a false doctrine - that denial, if it is taken to its
natural conclusion, ends up denying the incarnation. The book to read
that best explains this is "On the divine images" by St. John of
Damascus.

> There are three problems that I personally have with this argument:
>
> 1. The Orthodox notion that an icon visibly represents Christ's
> humanity, which is somehow united with an invisible divinity, is not
> consistent with the incarnation. It is, in fact, a denial of the
union
> of human and divine.
>
> 2. If you claim that the Incarnation allows us to depict G_d, then
this
> suggests that Christ was a created being. While Christ's body was
> created, making an image of Christ's body that is not directly united
> to the uncreated divine leads right back to a Nestorian division of
the
> natures.
>
> 3. For a painter to unite the divinity of Christ to wood would
> essentially re-incarnate Christ in a different body. The production
of
> icons deny the finality, as well as the sufficiency, of the original
> incarnation. Icons also the reality of the resurrection by uniting
> Jesus with corruptible matter.

It took me a bit of re-reading, but I understand your point. I think
that you are mistaken in your understanding of how Icons relate to what
they are representing. One statement that might help:
"For the honor rendered to the image goes to its prototype, and the
person who venerates an Icon venerates the person represented in it."
Note that we are not saying that the Icon *is* a manifestation of the
person, or has a part of that person. At least, not in any of the
Church Father's writings that I have read.

>
> > Or, asserting that the Pope of Rome is, even for a short time,
> > infallable: this causes severe issues with freedom of choice.
>
> The Orthodox fall into the same error when they pronounce their
Church
> infallable in spite of its history of heretical Patriarches.

No, not at all. We fully acknowledge that any individual, or even a
sub-group of individuals in the church are fallable and can commit
errors. It is only the Church as a whole that is infallable.

>
> > At the root (er, pardon the pun): the branch theory seems to view
> each
> > doctrine as loosely related to any other; a set of 'truths', if you
> > will, rather than all being part of ONE truth.
>
> What do you mean by "one" truth? Christianity has evolved over
> history. Imagine walking into a Christian service in 50 A.D. and
> telling the people there about the "hypostatic union" or the trinity.
> They would have had no clue what you were talking about.

Not in those terms, certainly not. But then, they wouldn't understand
english, nor even any modern Greek (so I am told). But I am sure that
once the language issues were surmounted, they would understand and
accept the concepts behind the language.

-V

[Zlatoust]

Dear V,

You wrote: "We fully acknowledge that any individual, or even a

sub-group of individuals in the church are fallable and can commit
errors. It is only the Church as a whole that is infallable. "

The Bible shows that the church can have doctrinal error. For
instance:
"I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to
the
teaching of Balaam.. Likewise you also have those who hold to the
teaching of
the Nicolaitans." (Rev. 2:14-15) "You tolerate that woman
Jezebel... By her
teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality... To you who
do not
hold to her teaching ...I will not impose any other burden on you."
(Rev.
2:20,24)
Notice the word "teaching," which is translated in the King James
as
"doctrine." It was wrong doctrine. The church was in error, and God
rebuked it
for that.
The apostle Paul also prophesied that wrong doctrine would be found in
the
heart of the church, coming from its own leaders: "I know that after
I leave,
savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even
from
your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw
away
disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30).
The apostle Peter prophesied that false teaching would afflict the
church:
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there
will be false
teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies,
even
denying the sovereign Lord who bought them- bringing swift
destruction on
themselves." (2 Peter 2:1)
In Jesus' day and in the Old Testament, the experts in Bible teaching
were
called scribes. Even they were guilty of false teaching, as the prophet
Jeremiah
wrote: "How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the
LORD,'
when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"
(Jer. 8:8).

As to the argument that the church cannot fall into error because of
Matt.
16:18, a more careful reading of the text shows differently: "...I
will build my
church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
This refers to the gates of hell. Gates are defensive. The metaphor
accordingly describes the church as attacking the gates of hell, which
will not be able to resist her onslaught. So the verse means the church
will be victorious over the devil; it does not mean that the church
will always be free from error. These are two different subjects.

For instance, from 754 A.D. to 787 AD the church taught that to
venerate icons was a sin. From 787 until the middle of the 8th century
it was required to venerate icons. Then a council again outlawed
them,. Then another council approved them again. If the church is
infallible, what happened here? How could it change its mind back and
forth on what was sin and what wasn't? Seems to me that the Orthodox
church is not infallible, any more than the pope is.

Another example: Hesychasm had six synods, four of which ruled for it
and 2 which against it. At least two of these had to be wrong. So at
least for those times the church was fallible.

Humans are fallible, so our church will be too. This is important for
us to realize, otherwise we will likely fall into deception when church
leaders make wrong rulings, which they have done in the past (as you
see) and will do again. We cannot depend on people to tell us what is
right and wrong. We must depend on the Holy Spirit and the word of God.
We cannot give that responsibility to others., I believe.

God bless

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>
>>No, it died out when the Church said circumcision wasn't required for
>
>
>>gentile converts. You seem so saddened that Christianity became a
>
> world
>
>>religion rather than an obscure Jewish sect.
>
>
> No, it died out when the Jewish believers died out.

The Jewish believers NEVER died out. Go read a history book, Lerner.
it died out immediately after the Apostles gathered and decided it
wasn't necessary.

>>>The funny thing is that most Orthodox would call these "minor"
>
> issues,
>
>>>yet they have, at times caused schisms in Orthodoxy. At one point
>
> in
>
>>>time, there were 2 Greek Orthodox Cathedrals here in New York which
>>>split over calendars!
>
>
>>The calendar issue isn't doctrinal.
>
>
> Show me where I said that it was a doctrinal issue. Your level of

This is what happens when you don't read the conversation ongoing in the
thread, and instead feel a need to jump in with something, anything,
because you imagine someone is just dying to hear your broken record of
fallacies again. Read above where Kerby wrote, "I must disagree. It was
clearly doctrinal." That was in the flow of the conversation, not your
abrupt and irrelevant ramblings.

If you agree with Orthodox that the matter isn't doctrinal, then your
gripe is with Kerby. But no, your interest isn't in getting at the
truth, but only to attack anything related to the OC. If it means using
Islamic revisionist history, you'll use it. If it means linking arms
with the talking points from the Assemblies of God, you'll do it, even
though you've thrashed this organization in the past, and attacked basic
Christian principles that even they share with the OC.

> argumentation is infantile, at best and largely dishonest. When one
> must lie, and attempt to put words in another's mouth, to defend their
> belief system, then that belief system probably isn't worth much.

Put words in your mouth? You've got both of your hands in mine,
stealing every word and line I post! No one has to put words in your
mouth. You do a fine job of stealing from whatever plate you can find.

> I said that the Orthodox consider it a "minor" issue, not a doctrinal
> issue. However, it is a matter of historical record that this "minor"
> issue casued major problems, including a schism in the Greek Orthodox
> Church here in New York. In fact, St. Irene's, which is up in Queens,
> was once a break away Cathedral over this issue.

As was written earlier, these calendar schisms have no relevance to over
99% of the world's Orthodox. We remain in communion. And even that <1%
minority in administrative schism (not theological!) has the exact same
doctrines as everyone else.

> Clearly you cannot address the issue at hand, yet you will most likely
> come up with another strawman.
>
> Learner

And you obviously don't know the meaning of the word "strawman", among
other fallacious terminology, and just love to throw it around in the
vain hope it will make you appear smarter. It kinda reminds me of a
feller in my German college class who never did his homework, and
whenever the teacher would call on him he'd just blurt out something
German sounding. If only he could hear the chuckling at him after class...

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>
>>I doubt he missed it, since I and others reminded him of it. What
>
> he's
>
>>done in past harangues is reference this passage because he thinks it
>
>
>>commands our clergy to be married (when in fact a basic level of
>
> reading
>
>>comprehension shows it is forbidding remarriage, a rule Orthodox
>>maintain today for its clergy, unlike our supposedly Bible-only
>>friends), but what's interesting is that I challenged him to post the
>
>
>>passage which he refused to do, obviously for the reason you've just
>>noted - it talks about authority figures in the "early" Church. And
>
> it
>
>>obviously doesn't forbid celibacy, an idiotic claim given that
>
> Christ,
>
>>Paul and other Apostles were celibate.
>
>
> As usual, when you cannot answer an issue, you change the subject,
> believing that being on the attack makes you look good. It really
> makes you look ignorant.

Ignorant and boring is how you appear by the continuous stealing of my
lines.

> Your Church says [regardless of what Paul said] that a Bishop must be
> the husband of no wife. Your Church did this for very earthly reasons.

Paul never said that, liar. Your continued refusal to provide quotes
speaks loudly.

> In fact, the local Spanish Council of Elvira (306 A.D.) first imposed
> celibacy on bishops, as well as priests and deacons. Notice the
> language concerning children:
>
> "We decree that all bishops, priests, deacons, and all clerics engaged
> in the ministry are forbidden entirely to live with their wives and to
> beget children: whoever shall do so will be deposed from the clerical
> dignity."

So? The rule isn't forbidden in Scripture.

> In the east, Emperor Justinian's Code of Civil Law forbade anyone who
> had children - or even nephews - to be consecrated a Bishop. Clearly,

So? The rule isn't forbidden in Scripture.

> there was a great deal of concern that a hereditary leadership could
> emerge in the Church and that families could inherit Church property.
> Therefore measures were taken to prevent this from happening.

So? The rule isn't forbidden in Scripture.

> As for the sins of other Churches/clergy, perhaps you should read up on
> what is happening to the "Holy Church" in Greece. Also, what about the
> Orthodox Bishop who was busted [a pun is intended] for being drunk and
> feeling up a woman in a Windsor Casino?
>
>
>>Not only that, when one reads the Fathers, the standard by which they
>
>
>>determined the credibility of another writer or holy book was its
>>Apostolic authority within the Church.
>
>
> Huh? I think that you have it backwards. Church doctrine evolved over
> time under political influence. The Church attempts to support

Which doctrines? Every time you've been asked this you snip and run.

> whatever it comes up with by looking for those among the Fathers who
> agree with whatever the Church wishes to pass off as "truth". Is
> Tertullian a Father? What about Irenaeus, Origin, or Justin? If you
> agree that Justin is a Chruch Father, then do you accept his statement
> that the Jordan broke forth in flames when Jesus came to it for
> baptism? If you do not accept that statement, then how can you consider
> him a Father? Can he be mistaken in one thing, but not in another?

Because being mistaken in science in history or science isn't the same
as being mistaken in theology. But alas, it's beyond your simpleton
faculties.

> Also, why has the Church never created an official list of Church
> Fathers?

Because it hasn't been a problem.

> Dodge away Joey.
>
>
>>Lerner apparently believes there
>>were a bunch of churches out there, with different lines of authority
>
>
>>and conflicting theologies, and Orthodoxy just fell out like a ball
>
> on
>
>>the roulette wheel.
>
>
> There were a number of different groups who held very different beliefs
> about who Jesus was and what Jesus said. As I have shown, and you have

What were the names of those groups? Who were there members? Where are
their writings? What were their beliefs? Answer the questions, Lerner.
If your facts are a straight line to the first century, it should be a
simple matter for you to answer my simple question. But you won't,
because you can't. You're shooting spit balls, and you know it.

> dodged, the authors of the Gospels disagreed about when Christ became
> the Son of G_d.

Not true, but that's irrelevant given that you're not a believer in
Christ, and apparently have converted to Gunderscoredianism.

>>I challenged him to tell us the names of these
>>other churches, their members, their bishops, their doctrines, etc.,
>
> and
>
>>he ran from it.
>
>
> I never run. There were Adoptionists [including the author of Mark]
> and Gnostics very early in Church history. In fact, the Gnostic

Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. You trace your personal beliefs to
the heretics condemned by the Apostles.

> Valentinus had been taught by Theudas, who was a disciple of Paul.

Judas was a disciple of Christ. In addition, Paul warned his followers
of the Gnostics. Go read his letters again, that's if you ever read them.

>>The truth is that there was one Church in "early"
>>Christianity, and only heretical sects on the side who were condemned
>
> by
>
>>Paul and others. If he believes his fundie co-religionists can claim
>
>
>>kinship with those sects condemned by the Apostles, by all means I
>>encourage it :-)
>
>
> Even before Constantine became "Christian" he killed off the Donatists.
> Christianity was never monolithic, nor should it ever be.
>
> Learner

Again, now we're getting somewhere. You trace your beliefs to the
heretical sects that Paul warned of.

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
> Aside from your normal bitterness and nastiness, you have added very
> little to the discussion. But then again, dialogue is not the reason
> your here, is it?

You're stealing my lines again, "Lerner."

> <un-Christian insults snipped>

Define "un-Christian." You've indicated your libido is your guide to
what religion you follow. You've attacked Scripture, Christ, Matthew,
John, Luke, Paul (selectively), the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, Mary, the
Orthodox Church, its martyrs. For you to call someone "un-Christian" is
the height of buffoonery.

>>They date to "early" Christianity, which was your original litmus
>
> test,
>
>>right? They date to the second century, which is about, oh, 1700
>
> years
>
>>before the invention of your Calvary Church's rapture theology. Or
>
> 1400
>
>>years before sola scriptura.
>
>
> You are dodging the issue at hand, but what else is new?
>
> Can you, or anyone else defend the Orthodox making and veneration of
> icons from the NT, the writings of earliest Christianity, and the early

Lerner, oh poor Lerner. Please tell us which books are in the NT,
provide the definition of "earliest", and enlighten us on what complete
writings make up the "earliest" Christianity, and then we'll help you.
Until then, stop pretending you're a Christian who's so concerned about
the NT when in fact you've attacked most of its books and you've written
that they are not infallible. If you don't respect the NT, don't ask
others to.

> Fathers? It should be a simple matter if Orthodoxy is a straight shot
> all the way back to Christ.

Cut the talking points, Lerner. I'll repaste the material you just
snipped...

We have early Christian images of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints, and
even Jewish mosaics of King David and the prophets.

Duro-Europos, home of many Jewish and Christian mosaics, is in Syria and
had a thriving Jewish
community. There are 3rd century mosaics of King David, events from
Ezekiel, and nearly thirty others in the ancient synagogue located in
this town. There is the floor at Hammas Tiberias (350 CE) with Jewish
images. Here you can view a painting of the sacrifice of Isaac in the
Beth Alpha Synagogue from the 500's:
http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/cja/Index_pres/Beit-Alpha%20Isaac.htm. And in
the middle ages we see vibrant manuscript artwork among the Jewish
community in Europe.

Let's take a look at the "early" art of Christians in the catacombs...

Catacombs of Callixtus (founded around the middle of the second century):

The story of Jonah (2nd century)

Necropolis under St. Peter's Mausoleum:
Sol-Christus (3rd century)

Catacombs of Domitilla:
Orpheus-Christ with animals (3rd c.)

Coemeterium Majus:
Good Shepherd (3rd c.)

Catacombs of Priscilla:
Good Shepherd (3rd c.)
Balaam pointing out star to Mary (3rd c.)
Madonna and Child (3rd c.)

Catacombs of St. Peter and Macellinus:
Jonah thrown to the whale (3rd c.)

Catacombs of St. Peter and Marcellinus:
Moses striking the rock (3rd c.)

Then we can see with our own eyes how similar the figures are in these

2nd and 3rd century images in the catacombs resemble our icons of today.
These "early" icons bear the same resemblance of modern icons:

Theotokos and Child
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/catacombs/madonna.jpg
http://www.skete.com/moreinfo_tn.cfm?Category=35&Product_ID=139

Good Shepherd
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/catacombs/goodshepherd1.jpg
http://www.skete.com/moreinfo.cfm?Category=34&Product_ID=94

Raising Lazarus
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/catacombs/lazarus1.jpg
http://www.skete.com/moreinfo.cfm?Category=40&Product_ID=281

Orans
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/catacombs/orante2.jpg
http://www.skete.com/moreinfo_tn.cfm?Category=35&Product_ID=153

> Neither you nor anyone else has, or can, do this. That is why you
> throw out a lot silly arguments to defend your icons.

No, you continue to divert the discussion. Define "early", as was
requested of you. Your problem is that you can't find one Biblical
injuction against icons, nor their veneration. Instead, you run from
the challenge to do such.

>>>The sad fact of the matter is that the veneration of icons has no
>>>support in the New Testament. The practice of making and
>
> venerating
>
>>>icons arose over the centuries as the result of the
>
> intrusion/inclusion
>
>>>of Pagan practices into Christianity. There is a lot of testimony
>
>
>>Oh, isn't this entertaining. You were beaten black and blue by
>
> Leonidas
>
>>over this, and I proved to you that Jews were creating icons. What
>
> do
>
>>you do? Take a few days off hoping Leonidas would go away, then
>
> start
>
>>back at square one. Nice try, but it won't work. Here's your
>
> spanking
>
>>again...
>
>
> Wrong again. Can you cite ANY historian who claims that these were
> icons - in the same sense of an Orthodox icon? Can you? Even Orthodox

Lerner, a don't need a historian to define plain English words for me.
Now, if you want to continue saying they are not icons, then please
define how an icon looks, and how you can tell an image apart from an
icon just by looking at it. Then explain where the OT says icons are
forbidden. You've ran from this challenge repeatedly. Instead, all you
can offer is, "That's not an icon!" Tell us why it's not.

> scholars such as Ouspensky and Lossky make no such claim.

Make what claim? That they weren't icons? You never provided such a
quote, even though I asked you, and you continue hoping your "word" is
good enough. That's not likely, Lerner, given your track record of
misquotes and outright lies about the record.

>>We have early Christian images of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints,
>
> and
>
>>even Jewish mosaics of King David and the prophets.
>>
>>Duro-Europos, home of many Jewish and Christian mosaics, is in Syria
>
> and
>
>>had a thriving Jewish community. There are 3rd century mosaics of
>
> King
>
>>David, events from Ezekiel, and nearly thirty others in the ancient
>>synagogue located in this town. There is the floor at Hammas
>
> Tiberias
>
>>(350 CE) with Jewish images. Here you can view a painting of the
>>sacrifice of Isaac in the Beth Alpha Synagogue from the 500's:
>>http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/cja/Index_pres/Beit-Alpha%20Isaac.htm. And
>
> in
>
>>the middle ages we see vibrant manuscript artwork among the Jewish
>>community in Europe.
>
>
> You have been corrected on this before. Sir Steven Runciman [whose
> views are repeated in Alexander Schmemann's "The Historical Road of
> Orthodoxy," and John Meyendorff's "The Orthodox Church" said
> ["Byzantine Style and Civilization"]:

You're stealing my lines again. You just cut-n-pasted this exact
talking points that were addressed earlier.

> "The earliest Christians took little interest in art. They were

This is proven incorrect by the links I posted. He is wrong.
Apparently, whether someone is wrong or right doesn't matter to you as
long as the word "historian" is written on their business card. Your
over-fascination of historians, whose practice is hardly scientific,
further shows you aren't one.

> largely influenced by the Stoics, to whom art was irrelevant, and they
> were under the shadow of Mosaic Law, with its stern ban on idols and
> graven images."
>
> So you are at odds with your Church's scholars. However, you are too
> thick-headed and arrogant to understand.

You didn't quote an Orthodox scholar. You made a hollow claim that
Schmemann and Meyendorff quoted someone else, and the fact that you
can't produce their supposed quoting of Runciman, who is wrong if he
really wrote that (which is probable given your dishonest track record
in this list), shows you're shooting blanks.

>>Let's take a look at the "early" art of Christians in the
>
> catacombs...
>
> None of these date to Apostolic times.

You prove my point. You now drop the word "early" once you've been
spanked, in favor of a new standard - "Apostolic." This in itself is
amusing, given that you attack the Gospel of John, an Apostolic work,
and in general you've rejected anything designated as "Apostolic"
repeatedly. Tell me, Lerner, which NT canon did the Apostles use?
Which Apostle believed in sola scriptura?

I realize these are frivolous questions to you since you're no longer
Christian.

>>Then we can see with our own eyes how similar the figures are in
>
> these
>
>>2nd and 3rd century images in the catacombs resemble our icons of
>
> today.
>
>>These "early" icons bear the same resemblance of modern icons:
>
>
> None of which date to within 200 years of the life of any Apostle.

Second to third century is within 200 years of the Apostles, Lerner.
Looks like math gives you problems as well. Nevertheless, you're still
grasping for some "early" period that squeezes out Orthodoxy but fits in
19th century Pentecostalism, and you can't come up with it.

>>>against images in early Christianity and this was a huge
>
> embarrassment
>
>>>to the iconophiles in the iconoclastic controversy. On many
>
> occassions
>
>
>>Leonidas challenged you to produce this "lot" of testimony... what
>
> did
>
>>you do? Snipped and ran as usual.
>
>
> Eusibeus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Clement of Alexandria and others
> opposed images. The iconoduls could find no support for their position
> from the works of the early Fathers of the Church, and this was a great
> embarrassment for them.

Leonidas spanked you on this already. The iconoclasts were the new kids
on the scene, Lerner. If you want to continue saying otherwise, by all
means go ahead and paint yourself as an idiot. Again, please save the
pretenses that you care what any Father of the Church writes, given that
you're not a Christian in any sense that a real Christian would recognize.

>>>and in several thread, I challenged anyone to demonstrate that icon
>>>veneration was a practice that could be traced to the teachings of
>
> the
>
>>>Apostles or of the earliest Church. If Orthodoxy is indeed a
>
> straight
>
>
>>No, you were challenged to produce evidence that they were not
>>venerated, and now you come back with a tu quoque.....
>
>
> Prove that they were NOT venerated? This is logically impossible!

So why do you continue making logically impossible assertions as if they
are fact?!?!? Don't blame others for pointing out the irrationality of
your rambling harangues.

> Prove to me that there are/were no unicorns. If they were venerated,
> then why don't we have any written evidence of this practice?

We don't have any written evidence in the year 35AD that there were
Apostles walking around teaching about Christ, do we? You're unable to
get away from your argumentum ex silentio, and seem to have absolutely
no learning curve whatsoever. You make up the most frivolous,
fallacy-ridden arguments and it never ceases to amaze me to what depths
of ignorance and simple lack of being able to think clearly that the
students in our universities have fallen. No wonder you can't even
finish and get a real job.

> I am not asking for much here - just a clear and simple statement in
> the NT saying "Make and venerate icons of Jesus, or of his mother, or
> of saints." I would be impressed if Ignatius of Antioch said

We can't do this until you tell us what books you consider to be in the
NT, and how you derived this knowledge! You've repeatedly attacked
every Scriptural book we use for evidence of one belief or another, so
cut the nonsense that you give a rat's behind about what's in the Bible.

> something like: "Take care of my icons while I am gone," or perhaps a
> line from Justin Martyr saying, "And then we venerate the icons."

Argumentum ex silentio, Lerner. Please go read a website on basic logic.

> But there is nothing to support icon veneration as a part of earliest
> Christianity. Nothing, zero, zilch and all of your gas [must be from

Argumentum ex silentio, Lerner. Please go read a website on basic logic.

> the cabbage] and insults cannot change the facts.

I'm still waiting for an answer on what this cabbage thing is about.
All I can make of it is that you think some immigrants eat a lot of
cabbage, and it's one more way of you expressing your festering hatred
towards foreigners.

>>>and unchanging stream flowing from the Apostles, then one should be
>>>able to trace this crucial practice and dogma of the Orthodox
>
> Church
>
>>>directly back to the source.
>
>
>>Strawman. We never said practices stayed the same, and you've been
>>spanked too many times to count over this, Stevie. The theology of
>>icons, which is the Incarnation, does in fact stream back to the
>>Apostles. When this is proven to you by referencing the Gospel of
>
> John
>
>>and other NT material, you attack the veracity of those holy books.
>>Really, Stevie, who have you convinced with these harangues?
>
>
> Once again, you disagree with your Church:
>
> "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." (http://www.acrod.org/orthodox1.html)

This is correct. Your problem is that your small mind can't discern how
this Faith is expressed, i.e. icons, and the Faith itself. The essence
of the Faith hasn't changed, and our practices remain perfectly
consistent with the theology given us by the Apostles.

>>>I have yet to see this. I have heard a lot of rationalizations,
>
> rants,
>
>>>dodges, and insults, but have yet to see the proof.
>
>
>>All you've provided is a continued stealing of my lines. It's become
>
> so
>
>>bad that you can't post a single message to this list anymore without
>
>
>>using my words.
>
>
> And you continue to dodge issues that I doubt you understand.

You're stealing my lines again.

>>>As for your early images, John of Damascus supported icon painting
>
> and
>
>>>veneration, not on early Christianity, but on the wrong assumption
>
> that
>
>>>people knew what Jesus looked like.
>
>
>>No, his argument was supported on the theology of the Incarnation.
>
>
> John argued that since God became incarnate, he could be depicted in
> the form of Jesus. Neither John, nor anyone else, had the slightest
> idea what Jesus looked like so John believe that an accurate image of

No, you've obviously not read what John of Damascus wrote, but instead
continue on with this fallacious strawman that Orthodox claim our icons
are pictographic reproductions. This isn't our claim, but the facts
don't matter to you, do they?

Read what John wrote:

“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

By your fallacious argumentation, since you don't know what Jesus said
since He's not around today and those who personally heard Him are long
dead, and given that the sound waves are long gone and he didn't write
anything, you therefore can't rely on the words written in your mass
produced Bible! How do you know they match the words of Jesus? Did you
hear Jesus? Is there a two thousand year old tape recording?

> Jesus existed by accepting the legend of the Abgar image - which I
> doubt that know you anything about and are too lzay to research.

If our icons are so incorrect, then why do Protestant churches use our
icons as the "prototype" for their marketing materials, plays, and movies???

> If we do not have an accurate image of Jesus, one might venerate a
> picture of anyone since the "closeness" of the images to the prototype
> is of no concern.

You're really making comments outside the scope of your understanding
and education. Whether an image is "close" or "accurate" to the real
thing is an extremely knotty philosophical and psychological matter.
Kantian epistemology dictates we can never now how a thing truly looks.
But this isn't the issue. The fact is that we DO recognize images and
the person they reference. It's never been the claim of the OC that
icons are exact duplicates of anything. I really don't see why you
think this line of argumentation has any legs.

>>>see that no one had the foggiest idea what Jesus looked like. All
>>>images of Jesus are creations of human imagination.
>
>
>>But you contradict yourself with the next paragraph...
>
>
> Well, let's see.
>
>
>>>That is why the earliest images of Jesus show him as a beardless
>
> young
>
>>>Jewish man, as a magician, as an Apollo-like man, as a variant of
>>>Jupiter Olympus, and in the Semitic form as triangular-faced man
>
> with a
>
>>>short beard and kinky hair.
>
>
>>Beardless Jewish man??? How do you know it's a depiction of a Jewish
>
>
>>man? How do you know it is Jesus since you've claimed you don't know
>
>
>>what He looked like, and don't form visual images of Him in your
>
> mind?
>
> My original statement stands. The variety of ways in which Jesus was
> depicted prove that no one knew what he looked like. In fact, although

Answer the question. How do you know it was a Jewish man? How do you
know it was Jesus?

> they did not believe in making images, Justin Martyr and Clement of
> Alexandria [who lived in the 2nd century AD] believed that Jesus was
> ugly after considering the "Suffering Servant" in Isaiah 55:2. Are
> there any icons of an ugly Jesus in your Church?

Which has nothing to do with iconography or their veneration.

> As far as knowing whether an image is a Jewish man, that is relatively
> easy if you know anything about Greco-Roman art - which you clearly do
> not.

Evasion. Now answer the questions. You once claimed to be a historian,
then an expert in "early" languages, now we're to believe you're an art
specialist. So please tell us, O' Mighty Art Specialist, how to tell an
image from an icon. Provide us the image to which you are referring as
a Jewish man, and how you can tell it is a Jewish man. Share your
abundant knowledge, Lerner. That is what you want everyone to think of
you, right?

>>>>But in the first century, there was no Bible, no sola scriptura.
>
>
>>>So, you do not consider the Old Testament as part of the Bible? Or
>
> did
>
>>>the Orthodox Chruch give Moses the Torah on Mount Sinai ?
>
>
>>Not by itself. The OT alone won't teach you a whit about the
>>crucifixion, resurrection, the Trinity, what's necessary for our
>>salvation, Christ's teachings, His nature, His mission for all of
>>mankind, His return, or anything else that is identifiable as
>
> Christian.
>
> But that was not what you said, you are changing the subject because

It's exactly what I said. There wasn't an OT or NT canon at the time of
Christ's ministry. If you believe otherwise, that's your problem. I
realize it's a big shock for fundie Prots the first time they learn that
bit of news.

> you have lost the debate. Also, in your small mind, what is the

You're stealing my lines again. Tell me, Lerner, does your girlfriend
scream my name?

> purpose of the OT? What about all of Matthew's creative
> "interpretations" of OT prophecy?

More of your attacks on the Gospels, and evidence of your flight from
Christianity. The OT doesn't exist in isolation of the NT for a
Christian. If you want to learn about Christianity, let us know and
we'll start that thread.

>>Nice try at a diversion. But Kerby's attempt here was to claim a
>>particular Orthodox belief wasn't present in the first century, and I
>
>
>>merely pointed out the foundation of his own theology wasn't there.
>>What do you do? Jump in with a lame attempt to divert the
>
> discussion.
>
> Kerby was correct.

Kerby failed to demonstrate his positive assertion (which he believes
though it's "impossible to prove" as you admitted), as did you.

>>>The earliest Christians were Jews who worshipped G_d on Saturday in
>
> the
>
>
>>What's this "G_d" thing? Did you forget how to spell God? Is your
>>conversion to fundamentalist Judeo-Islam finally complete??? Answer
>
> the
>
>>question, Stevie. You knew how to spell God's name not long ago; it
>>really begs the question why you've changed your spelling habits.
>
>
> I will spell G_d any way I please. If you don't like, then don't look
> at it.

Answer the question. Why did it please you to spell God correctly
before, but now you swap the vowel with an underscore? Why do you
continue pretending you are a Christian?

>>>synagogues. Aside from believing that Jesus was the Messiah, they
>>>looked and acted like any other Jew of their day.
>
>
>>They believed Jesus was the Son of God. They believed He rose from
>
> the
>
>>dead. They believed He was born of a virgin. The believed He would
>>return again from heaven. Oh, how funny that you ignore the obvious,
>
> or
>
>>rather it's sad how you deny the items I just listed by attacking the
>
>
>>veracity of the Bible, while then hypocritically challenging others
>
> to
>
>>prove something according to the Bible alone, a set of documents you
>>hold low regard for.
>
>
> The Didache, which is as old or perhaps older than some of the Gospel
> accounts, mentions none of these things. A bit odd, don't you think.

It's not odd, Lerner. It would be odd if any document contained the
full set of beliefs and practices of any religion. This is physically
impossible. The Didache makes no claim of such for itself, and you make
a mistake in granting it that status, a mistake made by no one in the
"early" Church.

> You can't zone out of an Orthodox Liturgy for more than a few seconds
> without being reminded about the eternal state of Mary's hymen. Yet

The Liturgy says nothing of anyone's hymen, and this is rather a
demonstration of how you reduce religion to a matter of animal instincts
and how little you think of Christ's mother. Oops! Forgot! He's not
the Christ to you, but just the simple man Yeshua.

> the Didache, Paul, and Mark don't even mention Mary's virginity!

But... Matthew does! And Mark calls Jesus the Son of God, which you
apparently regard as a made-up development these days. Paul reaffirms
that divinity. Again, you pretend that Scripture means something to
you, when it doesn't. The Didache, Paul, and Mark don't say anything
about an NT canon or sola scriptura. Why does that fallacious arguing
from silence not prove something to you?

>>>However, we can see from the Didache that their Litury was nothing
>
> like
>
>>>your Byzantine mongrel Church's Liturgy.
>
>
>>If you really believe that, then I challenge you to print as many
>
> copies
>
>>of the Didache and distribute them to your Calvary Chapel friends.
>
> The
>
>>Liturgy in the Didache includes fasting, repentance, communion, etc.
>
> is
>
>>what you see in Orthodoxy today, and not your charismaniac cult. It
>
> was
>
>>very similar to the Jewish Liturgy, and the Orthodox Liturgy
>
> maintains
>
>>such striking similarities.
>
>
> Amazing how you must attack "heretics" to defend your "true" Chruch -

But by your own definition, you are a heretic. You wrote with your own
words a few months ago that someone who denies the Nicene Creed is a
heretic. The Virgin Birth is an article of faith in the Nicene Creed.
Your attacks on the Virgin Birth make you a self-defined heretic,
Stevie. As much as you pretend otherwise, you have a track record
forever saved for all to see. And everyone can see you've gradually
evolved from a Calvary Chapel fundie to someone who's no longer Christian.

> which in now way follows the Didache.

Where is Orthodoxy inconsistent with the Didache? Stop running, and
provide the quotes where the two are contradictory. You won't do it,
because you can't do it, and hope in vain that the word of "Learner",
the internet troll, is sufficient.

Again, the Didache isn't all-inclusive of Christian practice at the time
and, more importantly, isn't Scripture. If you really believe it's such
a silver bullet for the case of your newly adopted fundamentalist
Judeo-Islamicism, then by all means print up copies and distribute them.
I guess that'd be hard to do given that you're living off the old man
and without a real job.

>>>Of adults who had to fast for two days. Also, the early Christians
>>>used running water, as seen in the Didache.
>
>
>>Wrong. It says nothing about adults, which you were spanked on
>
> before.
>
>>Keep at, Stevie. I'll be here to remind you of your errors. As far
>>as running water is concerned, this is what it says...
>
>
> So, infants fast for two days and receive instruction? Get real.

Get real, and actually read the book rather than the pamphlet points
your Calvary Chapel handed you way back. The Didache doesn't say
anything about instruction before baptism. Whooooops! The actual
writings are unimportant for the harangue.

Given that you're still a kid in college without having real life
experience caring for a newborn of your own, it's understandable that
you don't understand what a baby can or can't do. My daughter took over
nearly three days before she could learn to swallow, but it was
perfectly normal according to the pediatrician. But that's beside the
point. This fasting rule above was only for adults, not children.
Obviously, adults were reading the Didache, and not newborns. It was a
given that children born in a Christian household would be baptised at
birth, just as infants born in Jewish households are circumcised at
birth without any confession of faith, but adult converts to Judaism
would be required to undergo a lengthy catechetical period and
ultimately a confession of belief (another similarity with Orthodoxy).
If I read a manual on converting to Judaism, it would explicitly
prescribe this catechetical period, and not a whit would be mentioned
about infant converts. It's a given that the document is being
addressed to an adult.

You were explained all this numerous times, "Learner." By the way, how
many door knocker Jews have you ever met who offered to circumcise you
right on the spot after a canned prayer? Think about it.

>>"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: 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. But if you have no living water,
>
> baptize
>
>>into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in
>
> warm.
>
>>But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head
>
> into
>
>>the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism
>
> let
>
>>the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you
>
> shall
>
>>order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
>
>
> Which would leave out infants.

No, it leaves out adults who don't fast, depending on how strictly the
bishop enforced the rule.

>>Don't tell me that your Calvary Chapel baptises its members at some
>>rapids in Colorado. And don't tell me you guys fast. If your
>
> minister
>
>>ever asked the members of your cult to fast, they'd probably scratch
>>their heads and say, "What's the hurry?"
>
>
> And when your Church tells you to fast, you simply abstain from certain
> foods, and still eat. Fasting means living without food.

This is evidence you were never Orthodox. I'm not going to correct you,
as I didn't with your mistakes on particularities in the Liturgy,
because I like seeing you discredit your phony history as a "former
Orthodox" that you were so once proud to reference but have gone quiet
about lately.

>>>By not eating anything, as opposed to the modern Orthodox practice
>
> of
>
>>>abstinence from one thing or another - depending on the day.
>
>
>>Where does it say not "anything?" Where did you read it in the
>
> Didache,
>
>>Stevie? Why do you continue playing dumb and assuming others in the
>>list won't check the material for themselves?
>
>
> When the Jews fast for Yom Kippur, they eat nothing. When Hindus fast
> for Shiva-puja, they eat nothing. When Muslims fast, they eat nothing

You apparently don't know too many "real" Jews, Hindus, or Muslims. I
work around them every day and know for a fact that the overwhelming
majority of them don't fast on their holidays. You're trying to make
the rule a given fact of reality in one case (i.e. Jews et al), but then
try to make the exceptional habits of a few the absolute rule and
practice of everyone on the other side (i.e. Orthodox who don't fast or
fast imperfectly are thusly examples of an imperfect Faith). This is
called fallacious thinking, Lerner. Wipe your nose and tuck your shirt in.

> - at least during the day. When Orthodox fast, many go to
> all-you-can-eat seafood buffets! Even at my old Church they have

And which fantasy old Church was that, Lerner? Name and location,
please. I remember your dance away from this one a couple of years ago.
You've already discredited your made-up history.

> "fish-frys" every Friday during lent - in spite of the fact that sea
> creatures with spines should not be eaten at this time!

Oh, well. You're applying a standard of unattainable perfection to
fallen humans and you're not going to find these perfect people anywhere
on earth. So hard for a kid with a dorm room understanding of the world
to swallow, yes?

> Orthodox piety is a joke and you and I both know it!

This coming from someone who brags about his promiscuity, about his
libido leading him to the truth, displays pride at being slothful on
Sundays rather than going to services, attacks basic doctrines accepted
by anyone calling themselves Christian... That's the joke.

Moreover, our pious believers never established, nor do they establish,
their piety simply by fasting. They do so by sacrificing their lives to
Christ, often painfully and mortally so. It's that witness that
frightens you so much because your former Calvary Chapel wusses don't
have such a witness.

>>>Not so fast. In the Didache the Eucharist is very different that
>
> what
>
>>>is found in later Orthodoxy. There is no connection between the
>>>Eucharist and the death of Jesus, and there is hint of the concept
>
> of
>
>>>"real presence."
>>
>>You again make the illogical mistake of presuming this document is an
>
>
>>all-inclusive description of the Liturgy and beliefs of the
>
> Christians
>
>>using it, another tell-tell sign you've no training as a historian.
>
>
> No, it is proof that I am an historian. The Didache shows us what a
> very early community of believers believed. I never claimed that it
> was all inclusive, nor do I make this claim for Paul or for the
> Gospels.

You do indeed imply it's all-inclusive by repeatedly invoking arguments
of silence as proof something wasn't practiced. This is shoddy
scholarship, and in my historiography course in college I learned
better. You either have a degree from a community college in Puerto
Rico, or you're making crap up as usual.

> I read these sources for what they are and for what they say. I read
> them objectively and see the development of Christian doctrine and

It's not about "reading" websites, Stevie, but absorbing,
cross-referencing, applying sound reasoning, consistency in hermeneutic
practice, and researching sound sources, all of which you've shown in
this list to be lacking.

> belief over time. This requires intellect - which you clearly lack.
> Instead, your feeble mind must rely on what the Church tells you to
> believe. So, when you read the Didache, and see that there is no hint
> that Communion represents the body and blood of Christ, you simply

My point is proven. You do regard the Didache as a comprehensive
elucidation of Christian doctrine, and the absence of a particular
practice in the Didache is proof it wasn't practiced. This is
fallacious thinking, Stevie. Another F- for the day.

> assume that this is what they *really* believed since that is what your
> Church requires. Paul, of course, *really* believed in the virgin

The Church doesn't require its members to believe that the Didache
teaches the real presence. We don't practice the selective hatchet job
on Scripture, historical sources, and Patristic writings that you employ
to make your case against Christianity. Another fine display of your
ignorance, and a frivolous exercise in arguing from silence.

I take back the F-. You get a G.

> Church requires. Paul, of course, *really* believed in the virgin
> birth and the fact that he makes no mention of it is proof in your
> mind!

Maybe he did or not, but it wasn't a problem he was addressing when he
was writing his letters. After all, they were just letters, and not
Gospels elucidating Christ's life. Judging by what we read in Matthew,
an "early" source in the first century, we know it was commonly believed
that Christ was born from a virgin. Why would Paul reiterate what was a
given, and what was already explained by the earlier source Matthew???
Paul had new problems to address. This is the very reason why the
argument of silence is a logical fallacy, Stevie. Silence is evidence
of nothing more than silence.

BTW, where EXACTLY did you read an Orthodox source claim *Paul*
believed, or didn't believe, in the Virgin Birth????? Your problem with
the Virgin Birth has nothing to do with Orthodoxy, but with Christianity
in general. Our belief in the Virgin Birth doesn't rest with Paul,
Lerner, but with the entirety of the NT and Church Tradition, almost all
of which you reject.

How about explaining this... We have the Gospel of Matthew, from the
first century, elucidating the Virgin Birth. Obviously this was being
widely taught and believed since Matthew has been dated around 50AD.
Now, where are the reactionary documents condemning this "innovative"
teaching, IF non-belief in the Virgin Birth was the norm? Why was Paul
not condemning the belief, when his letters were circulating in the same
time frame and decades later, hmmm??? Why were the other Apostles like
Peter not condemning it, hmmm??? If this was really a strange new
teaching that was appalling to the Apostles, then surely there would be
something in their writings condemning it in the decades following
Matthew's Gospel, just as they condemned other looney beliefs, yes? And
if they didn't have such a big problem with it, then why should you?
Whooops! Forgot. You're not a Christian.

> I guess that life is easier if we let others do our thinking for us and
> tell us that everything is OK if we listen. I am simply not that weak.

Yeah, you're a big strong boy, with the vibrant libido! God is dead,
long live the Üb_rm_nn! Thus spake Lerner!

>>Which proves that the document isn't inclusive of ALL Christian
>
> beliefs.
>
>> But the material in the Didache IS a subset of what can be seen as
>>Orthodox. It has no resemblance at all of your charismaniac cult, or
>
>
>>whatever Christ-denying cult you've recently converted to.
>
>
> I never said that it was all inclusive, that is your strawman.

No, it is your fallacious argumentation that rests solely upon silence.

>>>"Overseers" is "episkopos," which later became the term "bishop."
>
>
>>Another of your lies, and I'll keep reminding you as long as you
>
> decide
>
>>to play stupid. Read Chapter 15 of the Didache...
>
>
> Lies are you field of expertise.
>
>
>>Bishops were not a later creation, but existed in the first century!
>
>
> 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.

That's not what you originally wrote. You said, '"Overseers" is
"episkopos," which later became the term "bishop."' You're trying to
imply Orthodox bishops are an innovation, while hoping others won't read
about bishops in Paul's letters, in the Didache, and the fact that Peter
and James were bishops. It's another of your frivolous rants.

> 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.

That's an utter lie, Stevie. And I exposed you on this before. The
fact that you would like to use the English term "overseer" instead of
bishop doesn't change the office or its functions.

1 Timothy 3:1
This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he
desires a good work.

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate,
sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach...

Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in
Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons...

Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed,
not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money...

Of course, you're going to snip the passages and reply, "But that's not
the matter at hand..."

>>>Clement's statement is found in a letter of rebuke which required
>
> some
>
>>>authority - which was found in the myth that authority came down
>>>through the years from the Apostles. Clement planted the seed that
>>>mutated Christianity into a hierarchal system that was very
>
> different
>
>>>from the arrangement found in the Didache.
>
>
>>Read your spanking above. I hope you continue this line of thought.
>>It's fun watching you struggle at the bottom of the barrel.
>
>
> Read the historical record above.

Yes, I provided the Scriptural record again. Try reading it next time
rather than your canned talking notes.

>>>True. In fact, most Orthodox lands did not even have mass produced
>>>Bibles until very recently - and they were mostly
>
> printed/distributed
>
>>>by Protestants.
>
>
>>Orthodox Catholics gave you your Bible to mass produce.
>
>
> Really? The Orthodox Church was around in the 4th century? This is

That's correct, and you stated such yourself months ago. Do I need to
remind you of your words again, or are was that harangue too embarrassing?

> really silly! The Roman Catholics, Copts and Assyrians could easily
> make the same claim as you.

And they would be correct. They were Orthodox at the time.

>>The eastern lands had mass produced Bibles since the printing press,
>
> but
>
>>you miss the obvious (again).
>
>
> Nonsense. The Russian Orthodox Church didn't translate the entire
> Bible into Russian until the 16th century! I most certainly did not
> hand them out to the peasants.

Are you claiming you are a reincarnation of a 16th century door knocking
fundie? Step away from the bong, please. Sounds like someone has had
one too many dorm room pajama parties.

>>You've placed a huge importance on owning a
>>personal NT canon (a canon which you can't define, and run from every
>
>
>>time challenged, and which books you attack at will) to the EXCLUSION
>
> of
>
>>everything else, and yet can't find any Scriptural basis for such an
>>unbalanced emphasis. In fact, the fruits of this practice are
>
> apparent
>
>>- 30,000 and growing sects who can't agree on the plain meaning of
>>Scripture. Orthodox, on the other hand, have a consistent teaching
>
> on
>
>>Christ and soteriology. That's what's important.
>
>
> Sure, I can tell what the NT is, just as I can tell you what the Qur'an
> is, or the Gita. It is what it is.

That's circular reasoning uttered in a meaningless tautology. Tell us
what books are in the NT, Lerner, and how you decided this. Stop
dodging the question.

> You still haven't told me which Orthodox Canon I should read - the
> Slavonic, Greek, or Ethiopian - all of which have a number of
> additional books. An odd situation for the Church that created the
> Bible! But then again, your Church set the date for Christmas, but
> can't decide whether it is December 25 or January 7!

What's your evasion... er, I mean, question? The date of Christmas or
the Orthodox canon? The date of Christmas is December 25th in all
Orthodox Churches. The content of the Orthodox canons are the same,
though book divisions and book naming conventions may differ in each
one's Apocrypha. And yet, all Orthodox practice and believe the same
doctrines. How many times do you need this lesson repeated, Lerner?

Now answer one of my old questions... why do you celebrate Christmas on
Dec. 25th? Whooooops! Forgot. You're not Christian anymore.

>>>I have discussed that fact that, in the Didache, there is no "body
>
> and
>
>>>blood of Christ" in the Eucharist. This alone serously calls into
>
>
>>There's a body and blood of Christ in Scripture, and in "early"
>
> Church
>
>>Father writings. Go ahead, post your canned talking points claiming
>>certain Fathers didn't believe in the presence. I'll expose your
>
> idiocy
>
>>again, "Learner."
>
>
> That is because the Gospel accounts were written be different people

I wasn't talking about Gospel accounts. I was talking about Patristics,
and your former misquotes and lies about what the writings say, among
all of your dishonest citations of historical records.

> over the course of time for different audiences. The symbolic aspect

Which might explain why Paul didn't write about the Virgin Birth.
Perhaps the pagan cultures to which he gave sermons didn't have a
problem believing in a Virgin Birth, and so he didn't dwell on it. How
is it that your theory of a pagan origination of the Virgin Birth never
comes up in Paul's letters to former pagan communities, but it comes up
in Matthew in a Jewish context? Cogitate on it, if you're able.

> of Communion became important as Christianity was morphing due to
> contact with Pagan influences. The Didache is very old, and says

You've never attempted to demonstrate this, nor even tried to present a
single source to hint that such occurred. More evidence you're a liar
about your supposed degree in history.

> nothing of the body and blood of Christ.

Sigh. The fallacy of argumentum ex silentio. I'll continue reminding
our readers as long as you feel like exercising it.

> Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11 that communion is a rememberance, not

Note, dear audience, how he refuses to post the passages in question...

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 -
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that
the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is
My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the
same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the
new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in
remembrance of Me."

Read carefully, Lerner... The OC teaches that communion is BOTH
symbolic AND the body and blood of Christ. Christ says plainly here,
literally, that the bread is His body and the wine is His blood. This
isn't what you believe, nor is it what your Calvary Chapel cult teaches.
You deny Scripture, and obviously the plain words of Christ.

> an literal re-enactment of Jesus' death. According to the Didache, the
> first century Church also believed it to be symbolic. Mark records the

That's a lie. The Didache doesn't say such.

> words of invocation but ends with Jesus calling the wine "the fruit of
> the vine".

Yes, Jesus is the fruit of the vine, plus more. I guess in your
literalist mindset you believe Jesus was a grape. Perhaps if Orthodox
painted an icon of a grape then that'd make you happy. If only anyone
knew what a grape looked like in-itself!

>>>But wait, there is so much more. The Didache does not mention the
>>>creation or veneration of icons [which was a later practice adopted
>
>
>>It doesn't mention the NT canon, sola scriptura, or anything else
>
> that
>
>>resembles your Calvary Church cult, or whatever Christ-denying sect
>>you've apparently joined.
>
>
> Exactly, all were later developments. Hopefully, you are learning
> something here.

Are you saying your beliefs were not the beliefs of Christ and the
Apostles? I'd like to see you be honest for one day and admit it.

>>>from the Pagans], there is no baptism of infants, there was
>
> preference
>
>>>for flowing water instead of water from a receptacle, there were
>
>
>>Where does it say infants, Stevie? Where does it say adults? Where
>
> is
>
>>this prohibition anywhere in Scripture or the Didache??? You can't
>>produce it, and in fact such a prohibition is believed only by a
>
> small
>
>>number of fundie sects. Most Protestants know better.
>
>
> Infants don't usually fast for 2 days or receive instruction.

That's why it's not required for them.

> But then again Joey, your Church requires that infants be baptized and
> anyone who objects to the practice is outside of the Church. So how
> can your very human organization require something that the Bible does
> not?

Wrong, the question is why you defined infant baptism as evil when
Scripture never defines it as such, nor does it prohibit it. I'm not
wasting any more byte space in this post on you for this topic. Sober
minds can read your illogical nonsense and judge the level of your
mental maturity for themselves. And thus far, you've won no converts in
well over two years of monotonous posting of the same talking points.
Let off the bong and cheap girls from the Calvary Chapel for awhile and
maybe you'll be able think clearly. Clean up your act.

>>>"Prophets" and "Apostles" who were later removed from the church
>>>hierarchy, there was no veneration of Mary or of Saints, there is
>
> no
>
>
>>Your proof???
>
>
> Do you have "Prophets" and "Apostles" in your Church? When did Paul
> tell you that you could do away with these offices?

Those were not "offices!" They were roles! James and Peter were
Apostles AND Bishops! But how is this possible??? Because a role isn't
an office! And offices are not mutually exclusive!

What a dufus!

>>>mention of the virgin birth [much like Paul's Epistles and the
>
> Gospel
>
>
>>The Virgin Birth is in the Gospels, Stevie. You're getting boring
>
> with
>
>>your argumentum ex silentio. Please do us all a favor and admit
>
> you've
>
>>left the Christian fold. It puts your harangues in context.
>
>
> You should read the Bible instead of repeating your childish harangues.

Stop plagiarizing my lines. I realize your bad study habits are hard to
break, but I never gave you permission to steal my work.

> What Paul DID SAY is far more interesting that what he did not say.

If only you read and understood what he said!

And duly note how "Learner" never quotes Scripture.

> Paul said that Jesus was born of a woman - not a virgin. Paul said

Another lie of yours. Paul did NOT say Jesus was not born of a virgin.
Of course, Jesus was born from a woman. He was also born from a Jew.
He was born from a human with two arms. He was born from a womb. He
was born from a virgin. But, of course, you'll deny the last three
truths because Paul didn't hold your hand and tell you the obvious
explicitly. That must mean Jesus was born from a Hindu, a human with
one arm, hatched from a bird egg, and born from a prostitute to boot!
Hey, Paul never said otherwise!

> that Jesus "was of the seed of David according to the flesh". In other

Well, duh. Jesus was the Son of David through Mary. Even Matthew says
this. Yet, he also tells us Mary was a Virgin. You're either/or
thinking strikes out again.

> words, Jesus was a biological descendant of David - which would have

No, those "other words" are not a given. And this is where you have
thrown the Gospel Luke into the fire with John and Matthew and half of
Paul's letters.

> been impossible if he were the son of Joseph by adoption instead of by
> blood. Mary was not a "Davidid" according to the mutually
> contradictory genealogies in the two Gospel accounts. In any case,
> descent at that time was traced through the male and not the female.

But this isn't what was meant in the Gospels. You've taken in the
talking points from your Islamic sources on blind faith alone. Deny the
Gospels as much as you like. It's irrelevant to us since you're no
longer Christian.

> So, you tell me what Paul really believed!

It's not necessary. You're not a Christian. It's a waste of time.

>>>of Mark], there was no doctrine of the atonement, there was no
>>>hierarchical appointment of bishops.
>
>
>>Note how you don't mention the Gospel of Matthew. If the NT book is
>>inconvenient, you omit it. And that leads to your refusal do define
>
> the
>
>>exact content of Scripture, and the method you would use.
>
>
> No, I read each book for what is says and not for what a cult wants me

Which books??? Stop running from the question.

> to believe. Matthew was written after Mark and he cut and pasted a lot
> of stuff from Mark.

Sez who? You? The Jesus Seminar? Note again your lack of sources.
Matthew has been dated to 50AD by many scholars. You make baseless,
unsupported claims, and vainly pray and hope someone will listen to your
idiocy.

>>>The one area where the Didache is in agreement with Orthodox
>
> Canons,
>
>>>was to not give up slavery. Slavery is still perfectly proper
>
>
>>What??? Is there something in the Didache about "bondsmen" that's
>
> not
>
>>in Paul's writings??? Show us your quotes, Stevie. I'll show you
>>Paul's words, following which I'm sure you'll attack Paul in your
>>harangue of the day.
>
>
> Read the Pedalion - if you even know what it is! Then we will discuss
> this.

Please enlighten us, and provide your quotes. No one's impressed with
the feather ruffling.

>>>according to Orthodox Canons. Even modern copies of the Pedalion
>
> ["The
>
>>>Rudder"] make a number of Church declarations that accept the
>>>institution of slavery as a matter of fact.
>
>
>>Not true, and when you were cornered on this before, you snipped and
>>ran. You post in this list under the dishonest nick of "Learner"
>
> when
>
>>in fact it's a very thin veneer covering a cynical hatred of
>
> Orthodoxy,
>
>>and rational thought for that matter, and it's won you no converts.
>>How's it feel being a failure, Stevie? You're probably used to it,
>>given you're a professional student living off of Papa's money.
>
>
> Once again, insults instead of answers! Such are the spiritual fruits
> that Orthodoxy has produced in you.

No, it's a fact. You're a professional student in a dorm room living
off Papa's money studying worthless subjects for years on end, with
nothing to show for it.

>>>These men lived in a mixed multi-cultural society where
>>>they saw Pagan practices, such as the veneration of images. They
>
> would
>
>>>probably be more horrified in your Church.
>
>
>>Not at all, considering Jews in the area were creating the same
>
> images.
>
> You are totally ignorant, or you are a liar - I suspect a bit of both.

Talking to yourself again, eh?

> Dura Europus dates from around 265 A.D.. So, how old were the
> Apostles, 200+ years old? Read your own claims! YOU said that these
> date from the 3rd century A.D., now you claim that they existed in the
> first century?

No, you're the liar, and you set it up by throwing up the smokescreen of
calling me a liar. I never claimed these mosaics were from the first
century. Prove me wrong and quote where I did such, or prove yourself
wrong again by snipping my response here.

>>>The disciples of Jesus did not agree on who he was and what he
>
> said.
>
>
>>Not after the Resurrection. Prove otherwise. But alas, you run in
>>another direction aftet dropping a baseless assertion...
>
>
> That is easy to do. I already demonstrated the persistent pushing back
> of the sonship of Jesus in time, from Paul to Mark to John. Also, the

No you didn't.

> Christology of John's Gospel, in fact entire Gospel according to John,
> is very different from the other Gospels. John even places the
> cleansing of the Temple in a completely different chronological context
> than the synoptics.

...and these boring rants yet again aren't interesting given that you're
not a Christian.

>>>The whole corpus of Church Tradition and the absurd notion of
>>>"apostolicity" was a later creation of a very human organization
>
> who
>
>>>wanted to read its doctrines back into time - regardless of the
>>>evidence.
>
>
>>Tell us, when was it created? You've made a positive assertion.
>
> Stop
>
>>running from the challenges and hard questions, "Learner."
>
>
> It was created over time and with great influence from the Byzantine
> state. However, whatever the Church comes up with, it attempts to
> project it back into time to make doctrine appear to be seamless.

But you were proven that iconography existed before the Byzantine state.
It can be demonstrated that every key Orthodox belief was believed
before Constantine. I'd like you to show us this time machine that
Constantine uses to travel to the 21st century to make us believe what
we believe, given that you imagine Orthodox beliefs are accepted merely
because Constantine gave them to us. This would be interesting.

> The Church then destroys/kills anything/anyone that is in opposition to
> whatever innovations are introduced. For example, the Old Believer

How is this possible? If Orthodoxy was an innovation believed only by a
small minority, how did they kill off the majority, especially when
Constantine wasn't Christian in the beginning? How did any Byzantine
emperor pull off this magical feat? And what is your evidence of a
suppressed Protestant majority? And if such idiocy was true, how did
Protestantism finally re-emerge if they were killed off? Where was
Protestantism, or your newly adopted Judeo-Islamic mongrel religion in
the first century, or during the ensuing 1600 years? What kind of god
would play a magical shell game for 1600, whoops! 1800 (for
Pentecostals), hundred years?

> Avvakum was murdered for persisting in his beliefs - which up to the

He was killed for more reasons than that, not least of which he wasn't a
very nice person. But given that, he shouldn't have been put to death.
Bummer. But I fail to see how murderous Iconoclasts, Calvinists,
Puritan witch hunters, Baptist slave owners, Jewish genocide in the OT
era, and Islamic brutality that extends into the 21st century makes you
feel morally superior. Your mongrelized personal belief system is
soaked with Christian blood.

But this will soon be a moot point. It's my understanding that ROCOR
has communion with the Old Believers (correct me if I'm wrong, ROCOR
members), and once ROCOR restores communion with the MP... there you go.

> time of Nikon's revisions - had been considered 100% Orthodox. In this

Bummer.

> case, the Russian state was nothing more than the persecuting arm of
> the Orthodox Church.

More of your ahistorical, tail-wagging-the-dog idiocy. If the Russian
state was an arm of the OC, then the atheist Bolsheviks wouldn't have
taken over.

>>>Anyone who has ever read the Gospels can see that Mark's view of
>
> Jesus
>
>>>was completely different from that of the Gospel of John. In fact,
>
> if
>
>
>>Which means... nothing. The fallacy of argumentum ex silentio is a
>>labelled a fallacy for a reason, Stevie. Go ask one of your Muslim
>>roommates to explain it to you.
>
>
> Which means everything if your mind can function properly. Mark wrote
> what he believed, not what John believed, or what doctrines your

It means nothing, Lerner. Arguing from silence means absolutely
nothing. It's not my problem if you refuse to understand what's been
accepted for thousands of years as sound logic.

> Byzantine mongrel church cooked up centuries in the future.
>
>
>>>we look at the NT in chronological order, we find that according to
>
> the
>
>
>>Chronological order doesn't determine credibility or accuracy. The
>>later books of John, someone who knew Christ personally, are vastly
>
> more
>
>>reliable and credible than earlier books by someone who didn't.
>
>
> Your community college level education is showing. What chronology
> shows is the evolution of Christian beliefs over time. The

It shows that evolution in Protestantism. And it shows in the evolution
of your theology over the last 2+ years from a Calvary Chapel
Pentecostalism to your current anti-Christian Judeo-Islamic mongrel
belief system.

> Church/Christianity wasn't set up "as is" by G_d - as your Church would
> love to con us into believing.

What's this G_d idol of yours that you've adopted lately??? How do you
pronounce that underscore? Gunderscored?

>>>Paul, Jesus became God's son at the resurrection. According to
>
> Mark
>
>>>[the earliest Gospel account], Jesus became God's son at his
>
> baptism.
>
>
>>There's no agreement among scholars that it's the earliest account.
>
> In
>
>>fact, the Jesus Seminar scholarship, which you're so fond of picking
>>from when it's convenient for your harangue, has really fell by the
>>wayside and been discredited in scholarly circles. You're well
>
> behind
>
>>the curve, Stevie.
>
>
> There is agreement among scholars that Mark is the earliest Gospel.

That's a lie. Leonidas called you on it countless times. Repeat your
lies at your own expense.

> The only major scholar who disagrees is G. A. Wells - who believes that
> the entire life of Christ is based on legend.

That's a lie. The Orthodox Study Bible (written by a committee of over
25 well-respected bishops - including Bp. Ware - and PhD scholars) dates
the Gospel of Matthew as early as 50AD and Mark at 65AD at the earliest.
The Oxford Annotated RSV Bible, the Ecumenical version, puts Mark just
before 70AD, and Matthew at the beginning of the last third of the first
century (i.e. about 66AD). Repeat your mongrelized Judeo-Islamic
talking points as much as you want. You're not a historian, and never
once provided any accurate source material nor an original writing of
your own. Papa's money well spent, I guess.

>>>According to Luke, Jesus became God's son at his birth. In the
>
> end,
>
>
>>So easy to cut-n-past the talking points, but so much harder to prove
>
> it
>
>>by cross-referencing the material in Scripture, eh?
>
>
> Don't be lazy, look it up for yourself.

No, provide your sources. I'm not doing your homework for you.

>>>John, [whose Gospel took much longer than the other Gospels to be
>>>accepted by early Christians], Jesus is the pre-existent "Logos".
>
> So
>
>>>even in the Gospels - the earliest accounts of Christ's life -
>
> there is
>
>>>a persistent pushing back of the sonship of Jesus in time.
>
>
>>And this harangue is further proof you're not a Christian.
>
>
> Whether or not this is the case, it is historical fact.

It's not a historical fact, something a non-Christian, non-historian as
yourself wouldn't understand.

>>>Also, the Didache [and I have no idea why you Orthodox point to
>
> this
>
>>>document since it blows a huge hole in your Church's false
>
> historical
>
>
>>Stealing my lines again...
>
>
> Why? You have nothing intelligent to say.

But your actions betray this sentence.

>>>claims] clearly holds a subordinationist view of Jesus. Justin
>
> Martyr,
>
>
>>That's not "clear" at all. Again, so easy to repeat the pamphlet
>
> points
>
>>than read a real history book, and employ sound logic.
>
>
> It is perfectly clear. Read these sources for yourself and leave off

It's not clear at all, proven by the fact that you never quote your sources.

> the blinders that your cult wants you to wear.

No, provide your sources and quotes for a change. It's the blinders of
your harangues that's got you banging your head on the padded room wall.

>>>who you called to your Church's defense, also had a
>
> subordinationist
>
>>>view of Jesus very similar to that of the Didache.
>
>
>>I challenge you to copy the Didache and distribute it to your cult,
>>Stevie. How many of your uneducate fundie co-religionists would even
>
>
>>know what the Didache is? If you truly believe it's magic bullet for
>
>
>>Pentecostal fundamentalism, then why is it and Patristics not
>
> required
>
>>reading for those churches? You know the answer.
>
>
> LOL! As if all Orthodox are experts in Church history!

Unresponsive to what was written.

>>>Once again Joey, there is no "true Church". All groups contain
>
> some
>
>
>>Once again, you deny Christ and His words in Scripture. Not a
>
> surprise,
>
>>given that you don't believe in a Christ. And I'll continue raising
>>this fact because you've dropped enough attacks on Christ, most of
>
> the
>
>>NT, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the authority of Scripture as the
>>Word of God, and even the normal spelling of "God" that it's evident
>>you're not a Christian in any sense of the word.
>
>
> I am not attacking anything. I am simply looking at things with an

Another lie. You attack anything Orthodox, even when it's a basic
doctrine that anyone who identifies him/herself as Christian accepts.

> open mind, which is not chained down by some cult mindset. If you have

Rather, your mind is chained to your libido, as you've admitted and
bragged on numerous occasions. You're not a Christian, so please spare
us the pretenses.

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> v1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Zlatoust wrote:
>
>
>>Ahh... you are proving my point. Here we see an introduction of the
>>"invisible church doctrine" - something that is necessitated by the
>>branch theory doctrine.
>
>
> I have a problem with the entire concept of a "visible Church". If we

Who cares. You're not Christian.

> call any regular assembly of Christians the "visible Church", then I
> have no problems with this concept since there is indeed a Church that
> is visible.

Of course you have no problem with it, because it's unscriptural and
unapostolic. If it's Christian, you got a problem with it.

> However, if one wishes to narrow down a "true" visible Church, defining
> it as one that somehow matches that which was handed down from the
> Apostles, and one led "into all truth" by G_d, then there is a problem.

What is G_d??? Another spelling problem, Lerner?

> According to this measure, only a handful of groups are even candidates
> for the title, so where is the visible Church?

The OC.

> Being in a hyper-Orthodox group, we can count out Rome. What about the
> other ancient "Orthodox" Sees - are they the visible Church? Are
> Churches located in predominantly Muslim countries [and the Jewish
> State of Israel], where even most of the minority Christian population
> does no recognize these Sees [i.e. the Copts, Assyrians, Baptists, etc]
> the "visible" Church? What about the Orthodox Churches here in New
> York, where nearly 1/2 dozen Bishops claim jurisdiction in violation of
> Orthodox Canons?
>
> Learner

Except you wouldn't know a violation of Orthodox canons because you
can't provide them. The bishops you reference are in communion and
share the same doctrines. Nice try, but the harangue fails.

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> v1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Unfortunately many protestants seem to deny, or are not aware, of any
>>Church history prior to around the time of the reformation.
>
>
> Perhaps, but most Orthodox are not schooled in Church history either.

How would you know this, given that you're not, nor were ever, Orthodox?

>>A good example of this is many protestant assertions that Mary is not
>>the "Mother of God", but yet the mother of Jesus. I suppose that
>
> they
>
>>attempt to "preserve the divinity of Jesus", but the logical
>
> conclusion
>
>>of this argument is either that Mary is not the mother of Jesus at
>
> all,
>
>>-or- that Jesus is actually two beings that coexist in the same place
>>and time - one divine, and one human. Add to that the hidden
>>assumption that a mother creates their child!
>
>
> The problem with the term "Mother of G_d" is that it suggests that the

Who is G_d?

> Eternal G_d had a mother from whom He originated in the same way that I
> originated from my mother. There is also a problem in conferring
> various epithets on humans which were not written in the Bible. Would

But you've failed to define the Bible. What books are in the Bible,
Lerner? You've thrown John, Matthew, Luke, and most of Paul's works to
the dung heap. Please, spare us the the demand of proving something
according to the Bible when you've rejected most of it and aren't Christian.

> you protest
> against my calling John the Baptist the cousin of G_d? The reasoning is
> the same.

No one ever believed J the B was the cousin of G_d. This wasn't an oral
nor written tradition anywhere. That in itself disqualifies it for
starters.

>>Another example: denying the veneration of Icons. Following this to
>>its conclusion ends up denying the incarnation of Christ - much the
>>same way as in the previous example.
>
>
> The conclusion does not follow the argument. Millions of people
> do/have accepted the incarnation without ever venerating an icon.

But that's not venerating icons is not the same as denying the theology
of icons. Continue on with this bullet-ridden line of talking points as
much as you want; I'll continue exposing your foolishness. It's your
reasoning that doesn't logically hang together.

> There are three problems that I personally have with this argument:
>
> 1. The Orthodox notion that an icon visibly represents Christ's
> humanity, which is somehow united with an invisible divinity, is not
> consistent with the incarnation. It is, in fact, a denial of the union
> of human and divine.

No it's not. Leonidas whupped you big time over this already. Plead
stupidity all you want. We agree you're guilty.

> 2. If you claim that the Incarnation allows us to depict G_d, then this

It allows us to depict Christ. Who's this G_d idol of yours?

> suggests that Christ was a created being. While Christ's body was

No it doesn't. It suggests He infused Himself into nature, a
blasphemous act by Jewish minds of the day, and thereby revolutionizing
our understanding of the physical world around us. Please, you're not
Christian. None of this has any bearing on you.

> created, making an image of Christ's body that is not directly united
> to the uncreated divine leads right back to a Nestorian division of the
> natures.

And Nestorianism is your belief set, not ours. What you've described is
an expression of your erroneous thoughts, not ours.

> 3. For a painter to unite the divinity of Christ to wood would
> essentially re-incarnate Christ in a different body. The production of

And this isn't an Orthodox teaching.

> icons deny the finality, as well as the sufficiency, of the original
> incarnation. Icons also the reality of the resurrection by uniting
> Jesus with corruptible matter.

More idiocy on your part.

>>Or, asserting that the Pope of Rome is, even for a short time,
>>infallable: this causes severe issues with freedom of choice.
>
>
> The Orthodox fall into the same error when they pronounce their Church
> infallable in spite of its history of heretical Patriarches.

No, you fall into the fallacy of unattainable perfection, and the
fallacy of division. You separate a part, and fallaciously claim it's
the whole. The problem is your inability to think rationally.

>>At the root (er, pardon the pun): the branch theory seems to view
>
> each
>
>>doctrine as loosely related to any other; a set of 'truths', if you
>>will, rather than all being part of ONE truth.
>
>
> What do you mean by "one" truth? Christianity has evolved over
> history. Imagine walking into a Christian service in 50 A.D. and

Partially true -- Protestant theology evolved over history.

> telling the people there about the "hypostatic union" or the trinity.
> They would have had no clue what you were talking about.
>
> Learner

Maybe they wouldn't understand those terms, but they'd understand the
theology if the terms were explained. A 50AD Christian could indeed
follow today's Orthodox services and understand what was going on.
Really, Lerner, go read a book. Spend time on your studies rather than
your Islamic web sites from which you copy your Iconoclastic talking points.

[Joe Orthodox]

v1...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Learner wrote:
>
>>v1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>Another example: denying the veneration of Icons. Following this
>
> to
>
>>>its conclusion ends up denying the incarnation of Christ - much the
>>>same way as in the previous example.
>>
>>The conclusion does not follow the argument. Millions of people
>>do/have accepted the incarnation without ever venerating an icon.
>
>
> I think you have missed the nature of my statement. I did not say "you
> MUST venerate icons or you deny the incarnation". My statement is

He's been told this numerous times by many people over two years.
"Learner" is a misnomer.

Again, he's been read the right act on this. He knows he's wrong. But
that's not the point of his harangue.

>>>Or, asserting that the Pope of Rome is, even for a short time,
>>>infallable: this causes severe issues with freedom of choice.
>>
>>The Orthodox fall into the same error when they pronounce their
>
> Church
>
>>infallable in spite of its history of heretical Patriarches.
>
>
> No, not at all. We fully acknowledge that any individual, or even a
> sub-group of individuals in the church are fallable and can commit
> errors. It is only the Church as a whole that is infallable.

Yep, but let's not confuse him with simple logic.

>>>At the root (er, pardon the pun): the branch theory seems to view
>>
>>each
>>
>>>doctrine as loosely related to any other; a set of 'truths', if you
>>>will, rather than all being part of ONE truth.
>>
>>What do you mean by "one" truth? Christianity has evolved over
>>history. Imagine walking into a Christian service in 50 A.D. and
>>telling the people there about the "hypostatic union" or the trinity.
>>They would have had no clue what you were talking about.
>
>
> Not in those terms, certainly not. But then, they wouldn't understand
> english, nor even any modern Greek (so I am told). But I am sure that
> once the language issues were surmounted, they would understand and
> accept the concepts behind the language.
>
> -V

Bravo to common sense.

[Joe Orthodox]

Zlatoust wrote:

> Dear V,
>
> You wrote: "We fully acknowledge that any individual, or even a
> sub-group of individuals in the church are fallable and can commit
> errors. It is only the Church as a whole that is infallable. "
>
> The Bible shows that the church can have doctrinal error. For

No it doesn't. It says the Church is the pillar of truth.

> instance:
> "I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to
> the
> teaching of Balaam.. Likewise you also have those who hold to the
> teaching of
> the Nicolaitans." (Rev. 2:14-15) "You tolerate that woman
> Jezebel... By her
> teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality... To you who
> do not
> hold to her teaching ...I will not impose any other burden on you."
> (Rev.
> 2:20,24)
> Notice the word "teaching," which is translated in the King James
> as
> "doctrine." It was wrong doctrine. The church was in error, and God

Wrong. The passage refers to "you" who do not hold the Church's
teaching. The person(s) are in error, not the Church.

> rebuked it
> for that.
> The apostle Paul also prophesied that wrong doctrine would be found in
> the
> heart of the church, coming from its own leaders: "I know that after
> I leave,
> savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even
> from
> your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw
> away
> disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30).

Yes, these are people in the Church, not the Church itself.

> The apostle Peter prophesied that false teaching would afflict the
> church:
> "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there
> will be false
> teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies,
> even
> denying the sovereign Lord who bought them- bringing swift
> destruction on
> themselves." (2 Peter 2:1)

Yes, these are people in the Church (and the heretics on the outside
seeking its destruction), not the Church itself.

> In Jesus' day and in the Old Testament, the experts in Bible teaching
> were
> called scribes. Even they were guilty of false teaching, as the prophet
> Jeremiah
> wrote: "How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the
> LORD,'
> when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"
> (Jer. 8:8).

But this has nothing to do with your assertion that the Church was in
error. By clinging to such a belief, you deny the Scripture's word
that the Church is the pillar of truth, and Christ's words for you to
obey the Church.

> As to the argument that the church cannot fall into error because of
> Matt.
> 16:18, a more careful reading of the text shows differently: "...I
> will build my
> church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
> This refers to the gates of hell. Gates are defensive. The metaphor

Not quite. Hades and hell are not the same thing. Hades is death, hell
is where you go after the Final Judgement.

> accordingly describes the church as attacking the gates of hell, which
> will not be able to resist her onslaught. So the verse means the church
> will be victorious over the devil; it does not mean that the church
> will always be free from error. These are two different subjects.

But you've got the subjects wrong. You've fallen for the same fallacy
of division Lerner fell into. Single individuals in the Church do not
constitute the Church. Time and again the Church's self-cleaning
mechanism has ridded itself of these plagues.

> For instance, from 754 A.D. to 787 AD the church taught that to
> venerate icons was a sin. From 787 until the middle of the 8th century

Not true. That wasn't an Ecumenical Council. The Patriarchs weren't
there. You were corrected on this before, but obviously reading what
other people wrote and checking your facts isn't important, Kerby.

> it was required to venerate icons. Then a council again outlawed

Not true.

> them,. Then another council approved them again. If the church is
> infallible, what happened here? How could it change its mind back and

Simple. The Church wasn't speaking in the robber councils, Kerby. Her
leaders weren't there.

> forth on what was sin and what wasn't? Seems to me that the Orthodox
> church is not infallible, any more than the pope is.
>
> Another example: Hesychasm had six synods, four of which ruled for it
> and 2 which against it. At least two of these had to be wrong. So at
> least for those times the church was fallible.

These weren't Ecumenical Councils.

> Humans are fallible, so our church will be too. This is important for

Listen to what you are saying. Humans wrote the Bible... by your logic
the Bible is fallible. Is that what you believe?

> us to realize, otherwise we will likely fall into deception when church
> leaders make wrong rulings, which they have done in the past (as you

But what about humans writing books in the Scripture? What evidence do
you have that Paul's letters are the Word of God, other than the Church
telling you such? Paul didn't claim they were such.

> see) and will do again. We cannot depend on people to tell us what is
> right and wrong. We must depend on the Holy Spirit and the word of God.

But people are writing those Words of God, and machines are mass
producing them. You've painted yourself into a corner.

> We cannot give that responsibility to others., I believe.
>
> God bless

But you give them responsibility to write books and then you believe
them when they say these books are the inspired Word of God. You're not
being honest with yourself.

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
>
>>>Bishops were not a later creation, but existed in the first century!
>
>
>>No kidding. And Biblical to boot. Learner must have missed this:
>
>
> But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox Bishop?
> Let's see.....

But you claimed there were no bishops in the first century!

>> For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in
>> order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I
>> directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the
>> husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused
>> of issipation or rebellion.
>
>
> Well now. Paul said that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, yet

No he didn't! Where did you learn to read English??? Do you think it's
perfectly OK to add words like "must" to Scripture?

> your Church says that a Bishop must be the husband of no wife. You are

Which is consistent with Scripture, unlike your Calvary Chapel clergy
who are allowed to marry, divorce, and re-marry as much as they like, in
total disregard for Scripture.

> comparing apples and oranges.
>
>
>> For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not
>> self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not
>> pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving
>> what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding
>> fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching,
>> so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to
>> refute those who contradict.
>> [ Titus 1:5-9, NASB ]
>
>
> Of course the Church had leaders. See my early post on how these
> offices evolved with some disappearing over time.

Which post? You never demonstrated such.

>>Of course, the King James is much clearer on the second paragraph.
>>It reads "For a bishop must be blameless..." Now, since Titus was
>>tasked by Paul (an Apostle) to appoint elders (presbyters) in every
>>city, and to watch over them, AND is called "episkops" what can Titus
>>be except the very model of a Metropolitan ArchBishop!
>
>
> Come on now, that is a huge leap of the imagination to equate a first
> century Bishop with a modern Metropolitan. Early Bishops were elected

But you've repeatedly claimed there were no first century bishops!

> by their congregations. When the Byzantine Empire made the Church

Where did you get it that they were elected by their congregations?
Quotes, please. It doesn't say who elected them in the Didache or
Scripture. Another of your lies.

> "official", the Emperor appointed Bishops. After Nicea II, Bishops
> elected other Bishops. Today, the Turkish Ministry of Religious
> Affairs calls the shots. By the way, in the early church there was no
> "rank" distinction between the presbyter and episkopos.
>
> So, once again, you compare apples and oranges.

No, you shifted the subject. You claimed there were no bishops in the
first century, in a lame attempt to deny the existence of Church
authority in the "early" Church. You compare apples and oranges, but
then quickly change the subject to eggplants and rubarbs and with a
silly poker face claim you didn't.

>>We have all the ingredients of apostolc succession - appointment and
>>tasking by an Apostle, appointing of presbyters (which in english
>>became prester, which is our modern word 'priest'), and keeping of
>>order in a region.
>
>
> You have no ingredients of Apostolic succession at all. Show me one
> passage in Scripture where anyone, who was appointed to a Church
> office, was called a successor to any Apostle. No amount of Orthodox
> scripture twisting can show this!

Very easy. Paul! And how about Matthias (Acts 1:15-26) -- And they
proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and
Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord, who know the hearts of
all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this
ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he
might go to his own place.' And they cast their lots, and the lot fell
on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

Now here comes the snip job, followed by the diversion, "But that's not
the question at hand..."

>
> And, who is the true Apostolic successor in New York City. Tell me.
> There are nearly 1/2 dozen Orthodox Bishops which claim this city as
> their "region". This is a clear violation of Church Canon Law. your
> Church cannot even follow the rules that it created for itself!

Which bishops are you referring to? Provide us the names and their
jurisdictions and we'll easily explain it to you. But you won't,
because you can't, because you don't know your head from a hole in the
ground when it comes to the OC.

>>The Scriptures are quite clear.
>
>
> Indeed they are. There is no mention of Apostolic succession or of a
>> monarchical Bishop in the Bible.

There's no "monarchial" bishop in the OC. Our bishops are elected, not
inheritors of their office by birth, which is what "monarchial" means.
But we already know plain English gives you difficulty.

You've made a failed attempt to shift the attention away from your claim
that there were no bishops in the first century, and have been soundly
spanked (again). What fruits you've produced from Papa's money.

> These were invented later in Church

That's an utter lie, Stevie. Go and read chapter 15 in the Didache.

1 Timothy 3:1
This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he
desires a good work.

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate,
sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach...

Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in
Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons...

Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed,
not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money...

Of course, you're going to snip the passages and reply, "But that's not
the matter at hand..."

> history and for purely human-political reasons.
>
> I Clement, 42:7 used the term "episkopos," and this term later took on
> our modern definition of "Bishop." Clement used this term in a long

Simply amazing on how you flushed your Papa's college money down the
toilet. After being soundly proven wrong on this, you go back to step
one with the refuted talking points. Lerner, read carefully... there
were bishops in the Didache. They are there in Paul's letters. They
existed in the first century. What is your major brain malfunction? Is
your erroneous harangue that warm and fuzzy for you that you can't let go?

> letter of rebuke for which he needed some level of authority. Clement
> attempted to create authority for his letter by creating the myth that
> authority came down through the years directly from the Apostles.
> Clement's ideas helped to transform the organization of the Church into
> a hierarchy unlike the simpler arrangement found in the Didache.
>
> Learner

What simpler hierarchy, Lerner? There are bishops and deacons in the
Didache. Do we need to go in this circle again?

[Zlatoust]

Dear Learner,
You wrote: " A local Spanish Council of Elvira (306 A.D.) first imposed

celibacy on bishops, as well as priests and deacons. Notice the
language concerning children:

"We decree that all bishops, priests, deacons, and all clerics engaged
in the ministry are forbidden entirely to live with their wives and to

beget children: whoever shall do so will be deposed from the clerical
dignity."

In the east, 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 that families could inherit Church property.
Therefore measures were taken to prevent this from happening.

This is the first time I have seen these quotes. Could you tell me
where you got them? (I am not disputing them, I just would like the
source...book, etc.) Thanks

[AGGreen]

Canons of the Council of Elvira (306 A.D.), the first council whos canons
survive in written form.
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm

Note: Scholars say that the first 16 canons were passed by the the council,
and the rest were added later. This, of course, cannot be confirmed and
probably never will be.

Note 2: It seems to me that these canons speak to local problems as they
existed is Espanya at the time, and are not particularly relevant
today. --Al

1. A baptized adult who commits the capital crime of sacrificing to
the idols is not to receive communion even when death approaches.

2. Flamens (a priest in a temple) who have been baptized but who then
offer sacrifices will double their guilt by adding murder (if they organize
public games) or even triple it with sexual immorality, and they cannot
receive communion even when death approaches.

3. Flamens who have not offered sacrifices but who have presided at
public games have kept themselves from complete destruction and may receive
communion when death approaches if they have done the required penance. If
they commit sexual offenses after completing the penance, they shall be
denied any further communion since receiving communion would make a mockery
of the Sunday communion.

4. Flamens who have been catechumens for three years and who have
abstained from sacrifices may be baptized.

5. If a woman beats her servant and causes death within three days,
she shall undergo seven years' penance if the injury was inflicted on
purpose and five years' if it was accidental. She shall not receive
communion during this penance unless she becomes ill. If so, she may
receive communion.

6. If someone kills another by sorcery or magic, that person shall not
receive communion, even at the time of death, for this action is a form of
idolatry.

7. If a Christian completes penance for a sexual offense and then
again commits fornication, he or she may not receive communion even when
death approaches.

8. Women who without acceptable cause leave their husbands and join
another man may not receive communion even when death approaches.

9. A baptized woman who leaves an adulterous husband who has been
baptized, for another man, may not marry him. If she does, she may not
receive communion until her former husband dies, unless she is seriously
ill.

10. If an unbaptized woman marries another man after being deserted by
her husband who was a catechumen, she may still be baptized. This is also
true for female catechumens. If a Christian woman marries a man in the
knowledge that he deserted his former wife without cause, she may receive
communion only at the time of her death.

11. If a female catechumen marries a man in the knowledge that he
deserted his former wife without cause, she may not be baptized for five
years unless she becomes seriously ill.

12. Parents and other Christians who give up their children to sexual
abuse are selling others' bodies, and if they do so or sell their own
bodies, they shall not receive communion even at death.

13. Virgins who have been consecrated to God shall not commune even as
death approaches if they have broken the vow of virginity and do not repent.
If, however, they repent and do not engage in intercourse again, they may
commune when death approaches.

14 If a virgin does not preserve her virginity but then marries the
man, she may commune after one year, without doing penance, for she only
broke the laws of marriage. If she has been sexually active with other men,
she must complete a penance of five years before being readmitted to
communion.

15. Christian girls are not to marry pagans, no matter how few eligible
men there are, for such marriages lead to adultery of the soul.

16. Heretics shall not be joined in marriage with Catholic girls unless
they accept the Catholic faith. Catholic girls may not marry Jews or
heretics, because they cannot find a unity when the faithful and the unfaith
ful are joined. Parents who allow this to happen shall not commune for five
years.

17. If parents allow their daughter to marry a pagan priest, they shall
not receive communion even at the time of death.

18. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, once they have taken their place
in the ministry, shall not be given communion even at the time of death if
they are guilty of sexual immorality. Such scandal is a serious offense.

19. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons shall not leave the area where they
work, or travel in the provinces, in order to engage in profitable ventures.
If it is an economic necessity, let them send a son, a freedman, an
employee, a friend, or someone else. They should engage only in business
activities within their own area.

20. If any clergy are found engaged in usury, let them be censured and
dismissed. If a layman is caught practicing usury, he may be pardoned if he
promises to stop the practice. If he continues this evil practice, let him
be expelled from the church.

21. If anyone who lives in the city does not attend church services for
three Sundays, let that person be expelled for a brief time in order to make
the reproach public.

22. If people fall from the Catholic church into heresy and then return,
let them not be denied penance, since they have acknowledged their sin. Let
them be given communion after ten years' penance. If children have been led
into heresy, it is not their own fault, and they should be received back
immediately.

23. In order to help those who are weak, the rigorous fasting that
requires no eating for a whole day shall be dropped during the months of
July and August.

24. Individuals shall not be admitted as clergy in a province other than
the one where they were baptized. Otherwise their life would not be known
by those who examine them.

25. Those who have letters of recommendation referring to them as
"confessors" should obtain new letters affirming them as "communicants"
instead. Simple people are deceived by the honored title of "confessor."

26. The rigorous form of fasting is to be followed every Saturday. This
will correct a mistake in our present practice.

27. A bishop or other cleric may have only a sister or a daughter who is
a virgin consecrated to God living with him. No other woman who is
unrelated to him may remain.

28. A bishop may not receive the offerings of those who are not allowed
to receive communion.

29. Persons who have an erratic spirit shall not have their name added
to the list of those making offerings, nor shall they be allowed to exercise
any form of ministry in the congregation.

30. Those who sinned sexually as youth may not be ordained as
subdeacons. This will guard against their being promoted to higher offices
later on. If they have already been ordained, they shall be removed from
their office.

31. Young men who have been baptized and then are involved in sexual
immorality may be admitted to communion when they marry if they have
fulfilled the required penance.

32. Anyone who has fallen into mortal ruin because of sin must seek
penance from the bishop and not a presbyter. In extreme illness a presbyter
may offer communion or may direct a deacon to do so.

33. Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the
ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives
and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be
removed from the clerical office.

34. Candles are not to be burned in a cemetery during the day. This
practice is related to paganism and is harmful to Christians. Those who do
this are to be denied the communion of the church.

35. Women are not to remain in a cemetery during the night. Some engage
in wickedness rather than prayer.

36. Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not
become objects of worship and adoration.

37. Those who have suffered from an evil spirit may be baptized as death
approaches. If they have been baptized, they may be given communion. Such
people are not, however, to light the church candles in public. If they do
so, they are to be denied communion.

38. A baptized Christian who has not rejected the faith nor committed
bigamy may baptize a catechumen who is in danger of death, if they are on a
sea voyage or if there is no church nearby. If the person survives, he or
she shall go to the bishop for the laying on of hands.

39. A pagan who requests the laying on of hands at a time of illness,
may receive the imposition of hands and become a Christian if his or her
life has been reasonably honest.

40. Landlords may not receive as rent anything that has already been
offered to idols. If they do so, they shall be excluded from communion for
five years.

41. Christians are to prohibit their slaves from keeping idols in their
houses. If this is impossible to enforce, they must at least avoid the idols
and remain pure. If this does not happen, they are alienated from the
church.

42. Those with a good reputation who seek to become Christians shall
remain as catechumens for two years before being baptized. Should they
become seriously ill, they may request and receive baptism earlier.

43. In accordance with the Scripture we shall celebrate Pentecost and
not continue the false practice [of celebrating the fortieth day after
Easter rather than the fiftieth]. If one does not accept this practice, it
will be considered a new heresy.

44. A former prostitute who has married and who seeks admission to the
Christian faith shall be received without delay.

45. A catechumen who has stayed away from the church for a long time may
be baptized if one of the clergy supports his or her claim to be a
Christian, or if some of the faithful attest to this, and it appears that
the person has reformed.

46. If a Christian gives up the faith and stays away from the church for
a long time, provided he or she has not become an idolater, he or she may be
received back and commune after ten years of penance.

47. If a baptized married man commits adultery repeatedly, he is to be
asked as he nears death whether or not he will reform should he recover. If
he so promises, he may receive communion. If he recovers and commits
adultery again, he may not commune again, even as death approaches.

48. Those being baptized are not to place money in the baptismal shell
since it seems to indicate that the priest is selling what is a free gift.
The feet of the newly baptized are not to be washed by the priests or
clerics.

49. Landlords are not to allow Jews to bless the crops they have
received from God and for which they have offered thanks. Such an action
would make our blessing invalid and meaningless. Anyone who continues this
practice is to be expelled completely from the church.

50. If any cleric or layperson eats with Jews, he or she shall be kept
from communion as a way of correction.

51. If a baptized person has come from heresy, he must not become a
cleric. One who has already been ordained is to be removed from office
immediately.

52. Anyone who writes scandalous graffiti in a church is to be
condemned.

53. A person who has been excluded from communion for an offense can be
readmitted only by the bishop who ordered the excommunication. Another
bishop who readmits him or her without obtaining the consent of the first
bishop is liable to bring tension among his brothers and may be removed from
office.

54. Parents who fail to keep the betrothal agreement and who break their
child's engagement are to be kept from communion for three years. If the
bride or groom has committed a serious crime, the parents are justified in
such an action. If both the bride and groom are involved in the sin, the
first rule applies and the parents may not interfere.

55. Priests who continue to wear the secular wreath [as former flamens]
but who do not perform sacrifices or make offerings to idols may receive
communion after two years.

56. Magistrates are not to enter the church during the year in which
they serve as duumvir [the government official who presides at public
occasions and national feasts].

57. Women and men who willingly allow their clothing to be used in
secular spectacles and processions shall be denied communion for three
years.

58. In all places, and especially where the bishop resides, those who
bring letters indicating their right to commune shall be examined to affirm
the testimony.

59. A Christian may not go to the capitol and watch the pagans offer
their sacrifices. If a Christian does, he or she is guilty of the same sin
and may not commune before completing ten years of penance.

60. If someone smashes an idol and is then punished by death, he or she
may not be placed in the list of martyrs, since such action is not
sanctioned by the Scriptures or by the apostles.

61. A man who, after his wife's death, marries her baptized sister may
not commune for five years unless illness requires that reconciliation be
offered sooner.

62. Chariot racers or pantomimes must first renounce their profession
and promise not to resume it before they may become Christians. If they
fail to keep this promise, they shall be expelled from the church.

63. If a woman conceives in adultery and then has an abortion, she may
not commune again, even as death approaches, because she has sinned twice.

64. A woman who remains in adultery to the time of her death may not
commune. If she breaks the relationship, she must complete ten years'
penance before communing.

65. If a cleric knows of his wife's adultery and continues to live with
her, he shall not receive communion even before death in order not to let it
appear that one who is to exemplify a good life has condoned sin.

66. A man who marries his stepdaughter is guilty of incest and may not
commune even before death.

67. A woman who is baptized or is a catechumen must not associate with
hairdressers or men with long hair. If she does this, she is to be denied
communion.

68. A catechumen who conceives in adultery and then suffocates the child
may be baptized only when death approaches.

69. A married person who commits adultery once may be reconciled after
five years' penance unless illness necessitates an earlier reconciliation.

70. A husband who knows of his wife's adultery and who remains with her
may not commune even prior to death. If he lived with his wife for a period
of time after her adultery and then left her, he may not commune for ten
years.

71. Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death
approaches.

72. If a widow has intercourse and then marries the man, she may only
commune after five years' penance. If she marries another man instead, she
is excluded from communion even at the time of death. If the man she marries
is a Christian, she may not receive communion until completing ten years'
penance, unless illness makes earlier communion advisable.

73. A Christian who denounces someone who is then ostracized or put to
death may not commune even as death approaches. If the case was less
severe, he or she may commune in less than five years. If the informer was
a catechumen, he or she may be baptized after five years.

74. Those who are false witnesses commit a crime and are to be excluded.
If their action did not bring about death, and they explain the reasons for
their testimony, they shall be excluded for two years. If their explanation
is not accepted by the assembled clergy, they are excluded for five years.

75. If someone falsely accuses a bishop, presbyter, or deacon of a crime
and cannot offer evidence, he or she is excluded from communion even at the
time of death.

76. If a deacon confesses that he had committed a mortal crime before
ordination, he is excluded from communion and must complete three years'
penance. If, however, the sin is disclosed by someone else, he must
complete five years' penance before being accepted as a layman to receive
communion.

77. If a deacon serving a community without a bishop or presbyter
baptizes, the bishop shall then give his blessing to those baptized. If
someone dies before receiving the blessing, that person is to be regarded as
justified by his or her faith.

78. If a Christian confesses adultery with a Jewish or pagan woman, he
is denied communion for some time. If his sin is exposed by someone else,
he must complete five years' penance before receiving the Sunday communion.

79. Christians who play dice for money are to be excluded from receiving
communion. If they amend their ways and cease, they may receive communion
after one year.

80. Slaves who have been freed but whose former masters are yet alive
may not be ordained as clergy.

81. A woman may not write to other lay Christians without her husband's
consent. A woman may not receive letters of friendship addressed to her
only and not to her husband as well.

[AGGreen]

***Amazing...simply amazing. Learner knows absolutely nothing. He is a joke.
It's fun watching you folks debunk him.

Al

"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:CFaYd.1716$gx3...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...

[Learner]

Zlatoust wrote:

> As to the argument that the church cannot fall into error because of
> Matt. 16:18, a more careful reading of the text shows differently:
"...I
> will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
> This refers to the gates of hell. Gates are defensive.

This raises an interesting question. Orthodoxy has not penetrated the
"gates" of American society, or of global society. The Orthodox make
up around 1% of the U.S. population and number .2 billion on a planet
of 6.3 billion souls.

> Humans are fallible, so our church will be too. This is important for
> us to realize, otherwise we will likely fall into deception when
church
> leaders make wrong rulings, which they have done in the past (as you
> see) and will do again. We cannot depend on people to tell us what is
> right and wrong. We must depend on the Holy Spirit and the word of
God.
> We cannot give that responsibility to others., I believe.

I agree. Orthodoxy is what history made it, and it is every bit as
fallible as anything else. The Orthodox Church simply cannot tell a
believer what is true or what is false, though the hierarchy likes to
give the impression that they can.

In fact, if we use post-Nicene definitions, most of early the
Christians would have been expelled from the Church, including people
like Justin Martyr - who held a subordinationist view of Jesus. What
is interesting is that the Didache and in Justin lived in a period
before Christianity became "standardized" under politico-religious
authority of Byzantium. That is why neither the Didache nor Justin
teaches icon veneration, or the veneration of Saints. In fact, Justin
does not even come close in his view of God that was required in the
post Nicene era. That is why Tradition and "Apostolic Succession" are
nothing more than the historical selectivity of sources. Those who
could be used in support of one or another later doctrine were adopted,
those who could not were excluded.

We simply cannot count on the Orthodox Church to tell us what is true
and what is false unless something contradicts the declarations of the
"accepted" Ecumenical Councils." As you pointed out, there were a
number of councils that were not accepted. For example, the Council
that forbade the veneration of icons was later reversed by another
Council, which was, in turn, reversed by the Synod of Frankfort which
once again forbade icons. So one can see from history that even the
councils are
fallible, though the Orthodox will never admit it.

If you seriously question the Orthodox, you will very quickly find that
they do not know what the truth is. I have had many discussions about
St. George and his dragan and St. Theodore of Tyre and his monster -
tales that the Church has passed off as truth for many centuries.
Worse than fictional stories is the fact that the Orthodox Church
celebrate fictional Saints that have been and still are venerated and
are part of the Orthodox calendar. For example, St. Josaphat is really
a Christianized Buddha, the man never existed.

Now, you will shortly see the less-educated Orthodox [i.e. Al and Joe]
get very upset at this, because they think the Orthodox church "only
teaches the truth."

The better educated in this group know that fictional saints exist,
however they cannot come up with any means by which the Orthodox Church
can tell which are fictional and which are not. So these folks
rationalize it away by saying that these stories *really* teach
spiritual [vs factual] truth. The problem is that the Orthodox Church
teaches a lot of information that is false, and if one part of
Tradition is incorrect, than all is open to question.

Learner

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

> > Notice the word "teaching," which is translated in the King James
> > as "doctrine." It was wrong doctrine. The church was in error, and
God

> Wrong. The passage refers to "you" who do not hold the Church's
> teaching. The person(s) are in error, not the Church.

This sounds a lot like the Muslim Student's Association's dawa-ganda
that Islam is the perfect system. When they are confronted with the
reality of corrupt "Islamic Republics" [i.e. Iran, Pakistan], they say
that these are not "true Islam" because "true Islam" is perfect. Like
your concept of the "true Church" the Muslims cannot point to an
example of "true Islam". Both are simply illusions.

> Yes, these are people in the Church, not the Church itself.

And in the Orthodox Church, these people were, mostly, Patriarchs and
Bishops.

> But this has nothing to do with your assertion that the Church was in

> error. By clinging to such a belief, you deny the Scripture's word
> that the Church is the pillar of truth, and Christ's words for you to

> obey the Church.

The passage about obeying the Church refers to a Church that settles
disputes between members. No Church does this today, except perhaps
for the Old Order Amish. I have told you this a number of times, yet
on and on you go with your tired harangue.

> > accordingly describes the church as attacking the gates of hell,
which
> > will not be able to resist her onslaught. So the verse means the
church
> > will be victorious over the devil; it does not mean that the church
> > will always be free from error. These are two different subjects.

> But you've got the subjects wrong. You've fallen for the same
fallacy
> of division Lerner fell into. Single individuals in the Church do
not
> constitute the Church. Time and again the Church's self-cleaning
> mechanism has ridded itself of these plagues.

Then what constitutes the Church? This sounds like "true Islam"!

> > For instance, from 754 A.D. to 787 AD the church taught that to
> > venerate icons was a sin. From 787 until the middle of the 8th
century

> Not true. That wasn't an Ecumenical Council. The Patriarchs weren't

> there. You were corrected on this before, but obviously reading what

> other people wrote and checking your facts isn't important, Kerby.

The 338 bishops who participated in Council of Hieria called it
Ecumenical. Once again, Orthodoxy evolved in another direction and
determined the "truth" after the fact.

> > them,. Then another council approved them again. If the church is
> > infallible, what happened here? How could it change its mind back
and

> Simple. The Church wasn't speaking in the robber councils, Kerby.
Her
> leaders weren't there.

They were found to be "robbers" after the fact.

> > forth on what was sin and what wasn't? Seems to me that the
Orthodox
> > church is not infallible, any more than the pope is.

> > Another example: Hesychasm had six synods, four of which ruled for
it
> > and 2 which against it. At least two of these had to be wrong. So
at
> > least for those times the church was fallible.

> These weren't Ecumenical Councils.

So what? The 7th Ecumenical Council said:

"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church,
let him be anathema."

So how do you know whether, or not, these six Synods fall into this
definition? You do not, yet you are not sharp enough to admit it.

> > Humans are fallible, so our church will be too. This is important
for

> Listen to what you are saying. Humans wrote the Bible... by your
logic
> the Bible is fallible. Is that what you believe?

Sure. I can point to a number of errors in the Bible.

> > us to realize, otherwise we will likely fall into deception when
church
> > leaders make wrong rulings, which they have done in the past (as
you

> But what about humans writing books in the Scripture? What evidence
do
> you have that Paul's letters are the Word of God, other than the
Church
> telling you such? Paul didn't claim they were such.

Well Joe, how can we say that this books are Scripture? Did men who
lived centuries after Paul know better that Paul? Or did Paul's
letters suddenly become instant Scripture at the Synod of Carthage?

> > see) and will do again. We cannot depend on people to tell us what
is
> > right and wrong. We must depend on the Holy Spirit and the word of
God.

> But people are writing those Words of God, and machines are mass
> producing them. You've painted yourself into a corner.

Not according to his view of G_d. The Spirit will lead him into the
truth, instead of your very human organization which has been full of
heresy for much of its history.

> > We cannot give that responsibility to others., I believe.

> > God bless

> But you give them responsibility to write books and then you believe
> them when they say these books are the inspired Word of God. You're
not
> being honest with yourself.

Well, whether or not I consider these book inspired, they most
certainly provide us with some ideas of what Christians believed -
which is very different than what your Byzantine mongrel teaches.

The marriage of Church and State under Constantine was a watershed
event in
the development of Christian doctrine - for example, Trinity doctrine
served as a theological "litmus test" which would have excluded earlier

Christianity - which tended towards subordinationism.

In fact, Justin Martyr had a subordinationist view of Jesus similar to
that of the Didache. Subordinationism characterized much of pre-Nicene
Christianity, and then Jesus was "begotten" of the Father - unlike the
view of earlier Christians who believed Jesus was the adopted son of
G_d.

I doubt that you understand any of this, but it is fun to watch you
rant.

Learner

[Learner]

Stephen M. Adams wrote:

> >But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox Bishop?
> >Let's see.....

> Close enough so that the differences are insignificant.

No they are not, as we will discuss in a moment.

> >> For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in
> >> order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I
> >> directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the
> >> husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused
> >> of issipation or rebellion.
> >
> >Well now. Paul said that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife,
yet
> >your Church says that a Bishop must be the husband of no wife. You
are
> >comparing apples and oranges.

> Uhm, no. Please study the original Greek text. It says "man of one
> woman" i and this s a description of what it means to be above
reproach.
> Nothing in the Greek text can be used to *insist* on marraige of
bishops.

Which is not the point. Paul did not require a Bishop to be
un-married. You are attempting to brush off what Paul said.

> That said, the Orthodox Church has had married bishops, and
Metropolitan
> +PHILIP of the Antiochian church is on record as believing that we
should
> return to the ancient practice.

Good for him. The Church made this decision based on politics and
greed, not the teachings of Paul.

> >Of course the Church had leaders. See my early post on how these
> >offices evolved with some disappearing over time.

> Look at exactly what transpires. Look at the authority that Paul
> gives to Titus. Look at what he is told to do. It's *exactly* the
> role of the Bishop.

But a modern Bishop goes far beyond what Paul said. Aftger Clement,
the next step in the development of the myth of Apostolicity comes from
Ignatius, who was a fanatic. Ignatius mentioned in Magnesians 6 that
the bishop presides "in the place of G_d." By saying this, Ignatius
introduced the notion of a monarchical bishop with uncommon authority
and gives evidence that by this time, and in his community, the
evolution of the Church into an authoritarian hierarchical structure
was under-way.

> >Come on now, that is a huge leap of the imagination to equate a
first
> >century Bishop with a modern Metropolitan. Early Bishops were
elected
> >by their congregations. When the Byzantine Empire made the Church
> >"official", the Emperor appointed Bishops. After Nicea II, Bishops
> >elected other Bishops. Today, the Turkish Ministry of Religious
> >Affairs calls the shots.

> Funny, I don't recall any representatives of the Turkish government
> being at the meeting of the clergy and laity that elected our new
> Bishops last year.

That is not what I said, you are becoming more and more like Joe -
which is rather sad. The Turkish government places a number of
restrictions on what little of the Church remains in Turkey. The EP
must be a Turkish citizen, for example. Also, as I recall the Church
elevated Vartholomeos after their first choice was rejected by the
Turks.

> And I think the people in the OCA and in Russia
> would be surprised to hear that Turkey designates their bishops.

I never said that. However, during the 19th and 20th centuries the
Russian questioned the Patriarch of Constantinople's canonical status.

> You really ought to study a bit more before you open your mouth.

So should you.

> >By the way, in the early church there was no
> >"rank" distinction between the presbyter and episkopos.

> Look above - the book of Titus clearly shows the role of overseer
> as superior - he is appointing presbyters and is not subject to
> them in any way.

> >Indeed they are. There is no mention of Apostolic succession or of

a
> >monarchical Bishop in the Bible. These were invented later in
Church
> >history and for purely human-political reasons.

> Go back and read Titus. What part of the "overseer" appointing
> presbyters and keeping things in order don't you understand.

So how does this support the myth of Apostolic succession? Paul did
not say, as Ignatius did, that they rule in the place of G_d.

> >I Clement, 42:7 used the term "episkopos," and this term later took
on
> >our modern definition of "Bishop." Clement used this term in a long
> >letter of rebuke for which he needed some level of authority.
Clement
> >attempted to create authority for his letter by creating the myth
that
> >authority came down through the years directly from the Apostles.
> >Clement's ideas helped to transform the organization of the Church
into
> >a hierarchy unlike the simpler arrangement found in the Didache.

> Hogwash. Clement was dealing with a local problem. The doctrine
that
> he put forth comes RIGHT from the Scriptures.

How does this support the myth of Apostolic succession?

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>
>>>Notice the word "teaching," which is translated in the King James
>>>as "doctrine." It was wrong doctrine. The church was in error, and
>
> God
>
>
>>Wrong. The passage refers to "you" who do not hold the Church's
>>teaching. The person(s) are in error, not the Church.
>
>
> This sounds a lot like the Muslim Student's Association's dawa-ganda

How would you know?

> that Islam is the perfect system. When they are confronted with the
> reality of corrupt "Islamic Republics" [i.e. Iran, Pakistan], they say
> that these are not "true Islam" because "true Islam" is perfect. Like
> your concept of the "true Church" the Muslims cannot point to an
> example of "true Islam". Both are simply illusions.

But wait a minute... you're fallaciously conflating eggplants and
rubarbs again. Islam is a religion, while the Church is an
organization. But let's look at what you're saying here. You've had a
habit of calling other folks "unChristian" -- but what does this mean if
there is no true Christianity? By what standard of truth do you judge
someone to be unChristian? Are you denying that there is a true
Christianity, in which case you then hypocritically contradict yourself
by calling others unChristian?

And your slamming of the "truth" in this section is contradicted further
down in your harangue...

>>Yes, these are people in the Church, not the Church itself.
>
>
> And in the Orthodox Church, these people were, mostly, Patriarchs and
> Bishops.
>
>
>>But this has nothing to do with your assertion that the Church was in
>
>
>>error. By clinging to such a belief, you deny the Scripture's word
>>that the Church is the pillar of truth, and Christ's words for you to
>
>
>>obey the Church.
>
>
> The passage about obeying the Church refers to a Church that settles
> disputes between members. No Church does this today, except perhaps

Exsqueeze me? What do you think the Councils were! What a dufus!

> for the Old Order Amish. I have told you this a number of times, yet
> on and on you go with your tired harangue.

Plagiarizing my lines again, Stevie.

>>>accordingly describes the church as attacking the gates of hell,
>
> which
>
>>>will not be able to resist her onslaught. So the verse means the
>
> church
>
>>>will be victorious over the devil; it does not mean that the church
>>>will always be free from error. These are two different subjects.
>
>
>>But you've got the subjects wrong. You've fallen for the same
>
> fallacy
>
>>of division Lerner fell into. Single individuals in the Church do
>
> not
>
>>constitute the Church. Time and again the Church's self-cleaning
>>mechanism has ridded itself of these plagues.
>
>
> Then what constitutes the Church? This sounds like "true Islam"!

The Church is the Church founded by the Apostles and which continues on
today visibly in the canonical Orthodox Churches. The Churches you read
about in Scripture - Corinth, Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatia, etc - remain
Orthodox today.

Please try to learn the difference between an organization and a religion.

>>>For instance, from 754 A.D. to 787 AD the church taught that to
>>>venerate icons was a sin. From 787 until the middle of the 8th
>
> century
>
>
>>Not true. That wasn't an Ecumenical Council. The Patriarchs weren't
>
>
>>there. You were corrected on this before, but obviously reading what
>
>
>>other people wrote and checking your facts isn't important, Kerby.
>
>
> The 338 bishops who participated in Council of Hieria called it
> Ecumenical.

330 and some odd bishops who agreed with Constantine V were called to
this robber council. The Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, and
Alexandria were not present. The Patriarchal office in Constantinople
was empty. And the Pope refused to attend or send a representative.
The council broke canon law, and was never regarded by the Church at
large as Ecumenical. You simply don't know your facts from fantasy, Stevie.

From A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy by Martin:

"On the ecumenical character of the Council there are graver doubts. Its
president was Theodosius, archbishop of Ephesus, son of the Emperor
Apsimar. He was supported by Sisinnius, bishop of Perga, also known as
Pastillas, and by Basil of Antioch in Pisidia, styled Tricaccabus. Not a
single Patriarch was present. The see of Constantinople was vacant.
Whether the Pope and the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem were invited or not is unknown. They were not present either
in person or by deputy. The Council of Nicaea [II] considered this was a
serious flaw in the legitimacy of the Council. 'It had not the
co-operation of the Roman Pope of the period nor of his clergy, either
by representative or by encyclical letter, as the law of Councils
requires.' [citing Mansi, XIII, 207d] The -Life of Stephen- borrows this
objection from the Acts and embroiders it to suit the spirit of the age
of Theodore. It had not the approval of the Pope of Rome, although there
is a canon that no ecclesiastical measures may be passed without the
Pope.' [citing Vit Steph, 1144c] The absence of the other Patriarchs is
then noticed [Mansi above]." (A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy,
p 46).

>>>them,. Then another council approved them again. If the church is
>>>infallible, what happened here? How could it change its mind back
>
> and
>
>
>>Simple. The Church wasn't speaking in the robber councils, Kerby.
>
> Her
>
>>leaders weren't there.
>
>
> They were found to be "robbers" after the fact.

That's not true. The Patriarchs outside the rule of Constantine V
denounced that council at that time. It was condemned within
Constantine's realm by clergy, laymen, and monks -- hence the violent
clashes that resulted afterwards. The Iconoclasts were in such a weak
position that their heresy was overturned by the majority soon
afterwards. That heresy was put to rest until recently when fundie
evangelicals resurrected it based on historical and Scriptural ignorance.

Sorry, Lerner, the facts hurt don't they?

>>>forth on what was sin and what wasn't? Seems to me that the
>
> Orthodox
>
>>>church is not infallible, any more than the pope is.
>
>
>>>Another example: Hesychasm had six synods, four of which ruled for
>
> it
>
>>>and 2 which against it. At least two of these had to be wrong. So
>
> at
>
>>>least for those times the church was fallible.
>
>
>>These weren't Ecumenical Councils.
>
>
> So what? The 7th Ecumenical Council said:
>
> "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church,
> let him be anathema."

Um.... so what?

> So how do you know whether, or not, these six Synods fall into this
> definition? You do not, yet you are not sharp enough to admit it.

What? Hesychasm has nothing to do with the Iconoclastic controversies.
Furthermore, those were not Ecumenical Councils. And yet, Orthodox
around the world believe the same theology, a fact which you
conveniently miss. Time and again you demonstrate an inability, an
unwillingness, to understand what's written, and what the facts are.

>>>Humans are fallible, so our church will be too. This is important
>
> for
>
>
>>Listen to what you are saying. Humans wrote the Bible... by your
>
> logic
>
>>the Bible is fallible. Is that what you believe?
>
>
> Sure. I can point to a number of errors in the Bible.

Of course you can. You're not a Christian and don't follow it.

>>>us to realize, otherwise we will likely fall into deception when
>
> church
>
>>>leaders make wrong rulings, which they have done in the past (as
>
> you
>
>
>>But what about humans writing books in the Scripture? What evidence
>
> do
>
>>you have that Paul's letters are the Word of God, other than the
>
> Church
>
>>telling you such? Paul didn't claim they were such.
>
>
> Well Joe, how can we say that this books are Scripture? Did men who
> lived centuries after Paul know better that Paul? Or did Paul's
> letters suddenly become instant Scripture at the Synod of Carthage?

Answer the question, Lerner. Give us the complete list of Biblical
books, NT included, that are the Word of God? Why the fumbling and
evasions, Stevie? Is it because you're afraid you'll have to openly
admit you're no longer a Christian?

>>>see) and will do again. We cannot depend on people to tell us what
>
> is
>
>>>right and wrong. We must depend on the Holy Spirit and the word of
>
> God.
>
>
>>But people are writing those Words of God, and machines are mass
>>producing them. You've painted yourself into a corner.
>
>
> Not according to his view of G_d. The Spirit will lead him into the

What's G_d? Where is that deity mentioned in the NT? Why can't you
spell God like Paul? Whoooooops! You're not Christian anymore. You
have a different god - Gunderscored!

> truth, instead of your very human organization which has been full of
> heresy for much of its history.

What evidence do you have that the Spirit has led 30,000+ Protestant
sects to the truth? They disagree on the means of salvation, the nature
of Christ, what he taught, and you can't even tell us what's in the
Bible. LOL!

And you also contradict your comments above with disparages any talk
about the "truth." You can't even provide a consistent harangue in one
post.

>>>We cannot give that responsibility to others., I believe.
>
>
>>>God bless
>
>
>>But you give them responsibility to write books and then you believe
>>them when they say these books are the inspired Word of God. You're
>
> not
>
>>being honest with yourself.
>
>
> Well, whether or not I consider these book inspired, they most
> certainly provide us with some ideas of what Christians believed -
> which is very different than what your Byzantine mongrel teaches.

Which books are you talking about??? Stop running from that question,
Stevie. If you can't put forth a coherent, complete argument with well
defined terminology, why should anyone take your harangue seriously?
Stop pretending you're a Christian who gives a hoot about the books
Christians read.

> The marriage of Church and State under Constantine was a watershed
> event in
> the development of Christian doctrine - for example, Trinity doctrine
> served as a theological "litmus test" which would have excluded earlier

Yes, we know you deny the Trinity. Yes, we know you're not Christian.

> Christianity - which tended towards subordinationism.

Note the lack of quoted sources you provide. Repeat your fantasies as
much as you want, Stevie. It's all so simple when one's living in a
dorm room in his mid-twenties and has nothing else to do.

> In fact, Justin Martyr had a subordinationist view of Jesus similar to

But wait a minute... Justin was a pagan convert! Not Jewish! You've
previously rejected the notion that pagan converts were legitimate
Christians! Whatsamatter, can't get your harangues in order?

Furthermore, you're now working backwards again. Justin converted in
130AD. But wait a minute... this isn't first century, so it fails your
first century test. Secondly, it not Apostolic, so it fails that test.
Thirdly, the earlier sources in the Gospels and Paul hold to an
Orthodox view of Christ being born the Son of God from a Virgin. So we
see here on your part an eagerness to take the later over the earlier!
In addition, just because someone is regarded as a Church Father doesn't
mean they are perfectly Orthodox in everthing they wrote. They made
mistakes, but that's ok. The body of Justin's works and beliefs have
been deemed to be Orthodox in essence.

You also continuously make the error in thinking that the elucidations
of later Councils are retroactive on earlier Christians who might have
confused or deceived by new heretical doctrines. This is false, Stevie.
You've been told this ad nauseum, but can't seem to grasp simple
discourse.

> that of the Didache. Subordinationism characterized much of pre-Nicene
> Christianity, and then Jesus was "begotten" of the Father - unlike the

That's a lie. Note the lack of sources provided.

> view of earlier Christians who believed Jesus was the adopted son of
> G_d.

Who believed this nonsense, Stevie? Where are your sources? Do provide
them. You've created this new harangue recently, denying Christ was the
Son of God, and not born as God from the beginning from a Virgin, and
then started with typing this silly "G_d" fancy that you've picked up
from a flashy website with cool graphics. You're a joke.

> I doubt that you understand any of this, but it is fun to watch you
> rant.

I wish I could say it was fun watching you plagiarize my material and
that of others, but it's really pathetic to know some poor man out there
dumped a bucket load of money into your education and look what he's got
to show for it. I pray he's got a good retirement account going.

> Learner
>

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:
> > But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox Bishop?
> > Let's see.....

> But you claimed there were no bishops in the first century!

Not in the same sense as today's Bishops. Really Joe, let's be honest,
you have no answers, that is why you lie.

> > Well now. Paul said that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife,
yet

> No he didn't! Where did you learn to read English??? Do you think
it's
> perfectly OK to add words like "must" to Scripture?

So Paul said that a Bishop must be unmarried?

> > your Church says that a Bishop must be the husband of no wife. You
are

> Which is consistent with Scripture, unlike your Calvary Chapel clergy

> who are allowed to marry, divorce, and re-marry as much as they like,
in
> total disregard for Scripture.

And your Bishop played with a woman's breast, while drunk, in a Casino!

> > Of course the Church had leaders. See my early post on how these
> > offices evolved with some disappearing over time.

> Which post? You never demonstrated such.

Yes I have, you lie once again.

> > Come on now, that is a huge leap of the imagination to equate a
first
> > century Bishop with a modern Metropolitan. Early Bishops were
elected

> But you've repeatedly claimed there were no first century bishops!

When? Produce the proof liar.

> > by their congregations. When the Byzantine Empire made the Church

> Where did you get it that they were elected by their congregations?
> Quotes, please. It doesn't say who elected them in the Didache or
> Scripture. Another of your lies.

Who else would elect them? These Bishops were not appointed as "millet
Bashi" by the Turks, or by the KGB.

> > "official", the Emperor appointed Bishops. After Nicea II, Bishops
> > elected other Bishops. Today, the Turkish Ministry of Religious
> > Affairs calls the shots. By the way, in the early church there was
no
> > "rank" distinction between the presbyter and episkopos.

> > So, once again, you compare apples and oranges.

> No, you shifted the subject. You claimed there were no bishops in
the
> first century, in a lame attempt to deny the existence of Church
> authority in the "early" Church. You compare apples and oranges, but

> then quickly change the subject to eggplants and rubarbs and with a
> silly poker face claim you didn't.

And you, who have been called a liar by at least three people on this
forum, accuse me! Clearly you cannot answer the question and you are
likely too dull to realize this fact.

> > You have no ingredients of Apostolic succession at all. Show me
one
> > passage in Scripture where anyone, who was appointed to a Church
> > office, was called a successor to any Apostle. No amount of
Orthodox
> > scripture twisting can show this!
>
> Very easy. Paul! And how about Matthias (Acts 1:15-26) -- And they
> proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and
> Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord, who know the hearts
of
> all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this
> ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that
he
> might go to his own place.' And they cast their lots, and the lot
fell
> on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

> Now here comes the snip job, followed by the diversion, "But that's
not
> the question at hand..."

No, there are two ways to look at this.

Apostolic succession is impossible according to the Bible, because
Apostles were witnesses to Christ's mission and were given special
power and authority. When your Bishop can raise the dead, then I will
believe in Apostolic succession. Clearly, no one has the
qualifications to be an Apostle after the original ones died and there
is no evidence that the Apostles believed in succession.

Another way to look at this, and I am sure that you are totally
confused by now, is that Paul was the one who was really the 12th
Apostle by a miraculous appearance of the Jesus.

I real issue is not whether Mathias could be chosen to replace Judas,
but whether the Apostles were right to choose Mathias. The Bible shows
many cases in which people - including the Apostles - made some very
bad choices and some in which people - including the Apostles - sinned.
Keep in mind that the same meeting that chose Mathias also prohibited
Gentiles from eating meat sacrificed to Pagan idols and Paul had to
countermand this decree in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8. So, I don't know how
far I would trust this decision, since we know that at least one
decision reached at this "sit down" was wrong.

Also, you have to be careful with the "Lukan" legends in Acts. The
entire Matthias episode clearly falls into the realm of legendary
embellishment.

> > And, who is the true Apostolic successor in New York City. Tell
me.
> > There are nearly 1/2 dozen Orthodox Bishops which claim this city
as
> > their "region". This is a clear violation of Church Canon Law.
your
> > Church cannot even follow the rules that it created for itself!

> Which bishops are you referring to? Provide us the names and their
> jurisdictions and we'll easily explain it to you. But you won't,
> because you can't, because you don't know your head from a hole in
the
> ground when it comes to the OC.

New York City has 3 Greek Orthodox Bishops, an Orthodox Church in
America Bishop, a Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop, an Antiochian Orthodox
Bishop, a Serbian Orthodox Bishop, a Russian Orthodox Church Outside
Russia Bishop, and 2 Greek Orthodox - Old Calendarists Bishops of
various stripes.

You really should come to the big city some time Joe. You will see
that your Church can't even follow its own soft rules.

> >>The Scriptures are quite clear.

> > Indeed they are. There is no mention of Apostolic succession or of
a
> >> monarchical Bishop in the Bible.

> There's no "monarchial" bishop in the OC. Our bishops are elected,
not
> inheritors of their office by birth, which is what "monarchial"
means.
> But we already know plain English gives you difficulty.

Once again, you dodge the issue: there is no mention of Apostolic
succession in the Bible.

> You've made a failed attempt to shift the attention away from your
claim
> that there were no bishops in the first century, and have been
soundly
> spanked (again). What fruits you've produced from Papa's money.

At least my father has money.

> > These were invented later in Church
>
> That's an utter lie, Stevie. Go and read chapter 15 in the Didache.

The liar is you. The original text, which you dishonestly edited said:

"Indeed they are. There is no mention of Apostolic succession or of a

monarchical Bishop in the Bible. These were invented later in Church

history and for purely human-political reasons."

Do you believe that G_d will reward you for your lies? But then again,
your god is your very human organization - the Orthodox Church.

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

[Note: I meant "Apostolic" in the sense it was not written by an
immediate Apostle of Christ.]

[Stephen M. Adams]

Responding to "Learner" is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
>> >But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox Bishop?
>> >Let's see.....
>> Close enough so that the differences are insignificant.
>No they are not, as we will discuss in a moment.

It's pointless - when refuted, you simply waive your hands and move
off in an different direction.

I'm limiting this to one question:

Do you accept the idea that doctrines can develop over time
without straying from the original intent of the Apostles?

Or do you think that all "valid" doctrine must be fully developed
during Apostolic times?

I'd appreciate an honest, direct answer. A third option that you
come up with is OK. Just be prepared to defend your point.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

[roger_...@yahoo.co.uk]

Learner wrote:
> Your Church says [regardless of what Paul said] that a Bishop must be
> the husband of no wife. Your Church did this for very earthly
reasons.

I'm not sure I understand why the church cannot decide this. The
scripture only prohibits 2 wives, not none. Churches with married
clergy have not been conspicuously successful.

> Church doctrine evolved over time under political influence.

I'm unsure that this is fair. Political influence is why the church
has been reformed, to get rid of it. Which doctrine, precisely, do you
have in mind?

> The Church attempts to support whatever it comes up with by looking

> for those among the Fathers who agree with whatever the Church
> wishes to pass off as "truth".

On what do you base this?

> Is Tertullian a Father? What about Irenaeus, Origin, or Justin?

Yes to all of them. But none are doctors of the church.

> If you agree that Justin is a Chruch Father, then do you accept
> his statement that the Jordan broke forth in flames when Jesus
> came to it for baptism? If you do not accept that statement, then
> how can you consider him a Father? Can he be mistaken in one thing,
> but not in another?

Of course -- the fathers are humans, not Jesus. Why must they be
infallible on matters of natural history?

> Also, why has the Church never created an official list of Church
> Fathers?

Why should it?

> Dodge away Joey.

It sounds, then, as if all these comments are jeers, not requests for
information? If so, why?

> > Lerner apparently believes there were a bunch of churches out
> > there, with different lines of authority
> > and conflicting theologies, and Orthodoxy just fell out like a ball
> > on the roulette wheel.
>
> There were a number of different groups who held very different
beliefs
> about who Jesus was and what Jesus said.

There is no evidence of there ever having been anything but a single
body formed by Jesus, following the teaching which he gave to his
apostles and they to their followers and the scriptures record.

> As I have shown, and you have dodged, the authors of the

> Gospels disagreed about when Christ became the Son of G_d.

This sounds very like nonsense, since none of the gospels discuss the
subject.

> > I challenged him to tell us the names of these
> > other churches, their members, their bishops, their doctrines,
etc.,
> > and he ran from it.
>
> I never run. There were Adoptionists [including the author of Mark]

Adoptionism is a modern term. Which ancient text refers to a sect
called 'adoptionists'?

> and Gnostics very early in Church history.

Not until the second century.

> In fact, the Gnostic Valentinus had been taught by Theudas, who

> was a disciple of Paul.

Prove it. This was denied by the church, and the Valentinians admitted
that their teaching was not that which had been preached in the open
air to all. Anyone can make up stories about conspiracies.

> > The truth is that there was one Church in "early"
> > Christianity, and only heretical sects on the side who were
condemned
> > by Paul and others. If he believes his fundie co-religionists
> > can claim kinship with those sects condemned by the Apostles, by
> > all means I encourage it :-)

Only the enemies of the church use the term 'fundy' -- and they only
ever mean the faithful.

> Even before Constantine became "Christian" he killed off the
Donatists.

The Donatist controversy did not involve state action until the time of
Honorius, almost a century later.

> Christianity was never monolithic, nor should it ever be.

Every movement centered on an ideology, rather than a social group,
must reject those who do not share that ideology. Christianity was
always of that kind, and attempts to attack this, in favour of some
unity of race or class, constitute a hate-crime. Every movement is
entitled to self-identity, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[AGGreen]

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110569544....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
> > > But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox Bishop?
> > > Let's see.....
>
> > But you claimed there were no bishops in the first century!
>
> Not in the same sense as today's Bishops. Really Joe, let's be honest,
> you have no answers, that is why you lie.

***The "sense" first century bishops is irrelevant. The fact is, there were
bishops. Other than that, this portion of the thread is really stupid. In
the first century, Christians were still getting their feet wet. That
Christianity today is not exactly as it was in 100 A.D. is irrelevant except
for determining the evolutionary development of the Church to accommodate
more and more converts, and to understand the development of theology and
dogma.

Al

[AGGreen]

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110559392.8...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>
> Zlatoust wrote:
>
> > As to the argument that the church cannot fall into error because of
> > Matt. 16:18, a more careful reading of the text shows differently:
> "...I
> > will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
> > This refers to the gates of hell. Gates are defensive.
>
> This raises an interesting question. Orthodoxy has not penetrated the
> "gates" of American society, or of global society. The Orthodox make
> up around 1% of the U.S. population and number .2 billion on a planet
> of 6.3 billion souls.
>
> > Humans are fallible, so our church will be too. This is important for
> > us to realize, otherwise we will likely fall into deception when
> church
> > leaders make wrong rulings, which they have done in the past (as you
> > see) and will do again. We cannot depend on people to tell us what is
> > right and wrong. We must depend on the Holy Spirit and the word of
> God.
> > We cannot give that responsibility to others., I believe.
>
> I agree. Orthodoxy is what history made it, and it is every bit as
> fallible as anything else. The Orthodox Church simply cannot tell a
> believer what is true or what is false, though the hierarchy likes to
> give the impression that they can.

***More bullshit from the heretic from and who will one day return to Hell.

[AGGreen]

***YAWN!!

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110561160.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[v1...@hotmail.com]

Zlatoust wrote:
> Dear V,
>
> You wrote: "We fully acknowledge that any individual, or even a
> sub-group of individuals in the church are fallable and can commit
> errors. It is only the Church as a whole that is infallable. "
>
> The Bible shows that the church can have doctrinal error. For
> instance:
> "I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to
> the
> teaching of Balaam.. Likewise you also have those who hold to the
> teaching of
> the Nicolaitans." (Rev. 2:14-15) "You tolerate that woman
> Jezebel... By her
> teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality... To you
who
> do not
> hold to her teaching ...I will not impose any other burden on you."
> (Rev.
> 2:20,24)
> Notice the word "teaching," which is translated in the King James
> as
> "doctrine." It was wrong doctrine. The church was in error, and God
> rebuked it

Notice the words "to the church at" (well, to the Angel of the church
of) which procede the verse: not "To all the churches".

And, what about the church at Philadelphia? (Rev 3:7-13) If we follow
your reasoning - this church has kept the faith the whole way through:
no things against them are written. If each 'church' in that book is
an entire Church, as you imply, then there is one that HAS kept all the
doctrines.

But, I disagree with the interpretation of revelation that your
statements from it seem to be based on.. No suprise to either of us, I
guess.

> for that.
> The apostle Paul also prophesied that wrong doctrine would be found
in
> the
> heart of the church, coming from its own leaders: "I know that after
> I leave,
> savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
Even
> from
> your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw
> away
> disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30).

Did you catch the words "draw away"??

Now, this is an interesting take on things:

> As to the argument that the church cannot fall into error because of
> Matt.
> 16:18, a more careful reading of the text shows differently: "...I
> will build my
> church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
> This refers to the gates of hell. Gates are defensive. The metaphor
> accordingly describes the church as attacking the gates of hell,
which
> will not be able to resist her onslaught.

Except for the use of "prevail" ("overcome"..), an active word, rather
than a passive word such as "stand". The defensive gates are rather
active for something that is defensive. But, if we look a little bit
earlier in the verses, we are told that the church is built upon a
rock. I believe that the Greek implies "large rock", but I am not
sure. At any rate, a rock dosn't move to attack either - so your
interpretation of the metaphor breaks down on both ends.

> For instance, from 754 A.D. to 787 AD the church taught that to
> venerate icons was a sin. From 787 until the middle of the 8th
century
> it was required to venerate icons. Then a council again outlawed
> them,. Then another council approved them again. If the church is
> infallible, what happened here? How could it change its mind back and
> forth on what was sin and what wasn't? Seems to me that the Orthodox
> church is not infallible, any more than the pope is.

Those decisions - back and forth - were not made by the entire church,
but parts of it. Ultimately, the entire chuch did make a decision and
it hasn't been an issue (within the Church) since then. One other
statement that may be of use here: the Church *means* the Church, not
just "the Bishops of the Church".

You also missed two much better illustrations that you could interpret
to your point better:

Did you know that at one time all but one of the Bishops in the Church
accepted the Arian doctrine? Even the Roman Pope (well, now
"anti-pope") as well. But that doctrine obviously did not prevail - by
all rights, it should have since it was supported by almost all the
Church leadership at the time.

There was another time when a substantial majority of the Church's
leadership agreed to accept the Roman Pope as *supreme* over the church
(as the Roman Church does today). But, when that council went back to
the Church - that decision was rejected.

> Humans are fallible, so our church will be too. This is important for
> us to realize, otherwise we will likely fall into deception when
church
> leaders make wrong rulings, which they have done in the past (as you
> see) and will do again.

I sense that you view infallability differently than I do: what it
means to me is that the Church will always find the correct doctrine
*as a whole*. Incorrect doctrines will be purged, and fall away. But
this process is not instantanious and, as scripture tells us, some will
be deceived.

> We cannot depend on people to tell us what is right and wrong.

It is even worse to rely on oneself to determine what is right and
wrong - we have too much self love, and are easily decieved because of
it. Anyone that believes that they know, or can find, the path on
their own is already decieved by pride.

> We must depend on the Holy Spirit and the word of God.

Yes, ok - but how is this done in practice? Even the Morman church
says this! I see a large number of protestant churches claiming this
too, but yet they do not agree in their doctrines. Even today, they
splinter and fragment.

Here, then, is the ultimate conclusion to "the Branch Theory": every
"Christian" will have their own, home grown, set of doctrines. No two
will match exactly. This is the tower of Babel in reverse!

> We cannot give that responsibility to others., I believe.

I disagree to this somewhat: a child cannot be responsible for their
own care until a certain age is reached, and again after we have gone
past a certain age. We have been designed to be dependent on each
other!

Now, I don't disagree totally because I do believe that we have
personal responsibility.

What I have not done is thought through the balance between these
things, so will pass on discussing this topic (individual/community)
further at this time.

-V

[v1...@hotmail.com]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

> He's been told this numerous times by many people over two years.

Probably it will be said numerous times more. If not for him/her, then
for any others who come accross it.

> "Learner" is a misnomer.

I stopped regarding the nicknames that people used as being anything
significant long ago.

> Again, he's been read the right act on this. He knows he's wrong.
But
> that's not the point of his harangue.

I'll give him/her some respect for creativity. Most of the arguments
against Icons are iterations of the same, 2nd commandment based,
arguments. The second most popular one is usually a scriptural
"argument from ignorance" (ie: you can't prove that icons were
venerated in scripture, so therefore they did not....) The third is
historical "argument from ignorance": no icons have been found, etc.

This is the first time I have seen the "joining Christ to the Icon"
argument. But then, I dropped off the newsgroups for a while. I'm
rather suprised to find Gail/galina/spazi/++ still politic-spammin the
group. She didn't used to.

I wonder what learner would think of the Enegy/Essence arguments.
Those would pretty much tube his creative Icon arguments as well...

-V

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>>>But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox Bishop?
>>>Let's see.....
>
>
>>But you claimed there were no bishops in the first century!
>
>
> Not in the same sense as today's Bishops. Really Joe, let's be honest,
> you have no answers, that is why you lie.

You haven't proven such, Stevie. Tell us how their authority is
different. You've been challenged again and again to put up your mind
blowing evidence, but... nothing by the tailwind of your quick getaway.
This is merely another deflection of yours into another direction
because you got caught with your pants down in your bishop rant.

>>>Well now. Paul said that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife,
>
> yet
>
>
>>No he didn't! Where did you learn to read English??? Do you think
>
> it's
>
>>perfectly OK to add words like "must" to Scripture?
>
>
> So Paul said that a Bishop must be unmarried?

No he didn't. And you thusly, fallaciously conclude that such a silence
(again) is proof that he believed the opposite. Really, Stevie, you've
got nothing to help you on this. You got Scripture wrong, you got the
Didache wrong. You blew it.

>>>your Church says that a Bishop must be the husband of no wife. You
>
> are
>
>
>>Which is consistent with Scripture, unlike your Calvary Chapel clergy
>
>
>>who are allowed to marry, divorce, and re-marry as much as they like,
>
> in
>
>>total disregard for Scripture.
>
>
> And your Bishop played with a woman's breast, while drunk, in a Casino!

Say what? You don't even know who my bishop is. Tell me, O' Love Child
of Miss Cleo, what does your crystal ball say about the color of my
bishop's underwear? Quite interesting that you can't let a day go by
without a post mentioning women's body parts, whether its breasts or
hymens. You're pseudo-piety is a joke and you and I both know it ;-))))

>>>Of course the Church had leaders. See my early post on how these
>>>offices evolved with some disappearing over time.
>
>
>>Which post? You never demonstrated such.
>
>
> Yes I have, you lie once again.

No you didn't. Note the lack of any rebuttal material on your part to
prove you did such. The only thing you've done is erroneously throw the
word "monarchial" around without a clue to its meaning. Now please
explain what functions our bishops possess today that is different from
those in the NT.

>>>Come on now, that is a huge leap of the imagination to equate a
>
> first
>
>>>century Bishop with a modern Metropolitan. Early Bishops were
>
> elected
>
>
>>But you've repeatedly claimed there were no first century bishops!
>
>
> When? Produce the proof liar.

The proof is at the bottom of this post, in your own words...

>>>by their congregations. When the Byzantine Empire made the Church
>
>
>>Where did you get it that they were elected by their congregations?
>>Quotes, please. It doesn't say who elected them in the Didache or
>>Scripture. Another of your lies.
>
>
> Who else would elect them? These Bishops were not appointed as "millet
> Bashi" by the Turks, or by the KGB.

They could have been elected by a synod of other bishops, which is
consistent with Orthodox practice. There are different forms of
democracy and voting, Lerner. The fact is that you made an affirmative
assertion that the Didache says the bishops were elected by
congregations and it says no such thing. You know it, but don't care
about the facts. The truth, for you, is beside the point.

>>>"official", the Emperor appointed Bishops. After Nicea II, Bishops
>>>elected other Bishops. Today, the Turkish Ministry of Religious
>>>Affairs calls the shots. By the way, in the early church there was
>
> no
>
>>>"rank" distinction between the presbyter and episkopos.
>
>
>>>So, once again, you compare apples and oranges.
>
>
>>No, you shifted the subject. You claimed there were no bishops in
>
> the
>
>>first century, in a lame attempt to deny the existence of Church
>>authority in the "early" Church. You compare apples and oranges, but
>
>
>>then quickly change the subject to eggplants and rubarbs and with a
>>silly poker face claim you didn't.
>
>
> And you, who have been called a liar by at least three people on this
> forum, accuse me! Clearly you cannot answer the question and you are

Which three people? You, yourself, and your libido?

> likely too dull to realize this fact.

You've asked no "questions", Lerner. You've harangued. That's it.
You've made idiotic claims about bishops, and were refuted handily by
many individuals in this list. Your tactic is merely, "I'll deflect,
pretend my butt wasn't kicked, throw sand in the air, and go back to the
talking points from square one." In some cases, many moved on after
wearing out from the boredom of pummeling the village idiot. Not this
time. I'll be here reminding you of our words and record, and inane
inability to put forth a sound, factual argument. It takes me all of
ten minutes to do it, given that you repeat the same errors over and
over again. You don't know your head from a hole in the ground when it
comes to the subject matter at hand, and I'll be there to highlight it
as long as you feel the need to express it in this list.

>>>You have no ingredients of Apostolic succession at all. Show me
>
> one
>
>>>passage in Scripture where anyone, who was appointed to a Church
>>>office, was called a successor to any Apostle. No amount of
>
> Orthodox
>
>>>scripture twisting can show this!
>>
>>Very easy. Paul! And how about Matthias (Acts 1:15-26) -- And they
>>proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and
>>Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord, who know the hearts
>
> of
>
>>all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this
>>ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that
>
> he
>
>>might go to his own place.' And they cast their lots, and the lot
>
> fell
>
>>on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
>
>
>>Now here comes the snip job, followed by the diversion, "But that's
>
> not
>
>>the question at hand..."
>
>
> No, there are two ways to look at this.

Yeah, the right way and then your misquoted way.

> Apostolic succession is impossible according to the Bible, because

That's a lie. I proved you wrong above.

> Apostles were witnesses to Christ's mission and were given special
> power and authority. When your Bishop can raise the dead, then I will

But wait a minute... down below you say they made "bad mistakes"
(apparently choosing Matthias was one of them, for some mysterious
reason you never explained) and sinned. You've written elsewhere that
there's no evidence that anything special happened in their councils.
So what special power and authority did they have if their councils were
wrong and their simple decision to simply pick an Apostolic successor
was a bad mistake? How could that power and authority mysteriously,
inexplicably be lacking the ability to choose successors, a rather
mundane exercise of any kind of authority? That makes absolutely no
sense, Lerner. You on the one hand claim there's no evidence that they
did such a thing, and when the plain words of Scripture show you are
wrong, all you can say is, "It was a bad mistake." This is the confused
argumentation of a net dufus.

> believe in Apostolic succession. Clearly, no one has the

You deny Scripture, Lerner. I just quoted you an instance where the
Apostles appointed someone to succeed one of there own. You choose to
believe these events described in Scripture are mere side notes,
irrelevant to the practice and teaching intended to be communicated by
their authors. That's your problem, not Christians'.

> qualifications to be an Apostle after the original ones died and there
> is no evidence that the Apostles believed in succession.

You're arguing from silence again. Silence is evidence of silence, Stevie.

> Another way to look at this, and I am sure that you are totally
> confused by now, is that Paul was the one who was really the 12th

No, you are confused. Acts clearly states that Matthias was chosen.
Yes, we understand you reject the Gospels, most of what Paul wrote, and
now Acts. Then you ridiculously demand that others prove something by
Scripture, a body of books you don't accept.

> Apostle by a miraculous appearance of the Jesus.

Of course Paul was in the Apostolic succession. Hands were laid upon
him and he was validly ordained by the appropriate authority.

> I real issue is not whether Mathias could be chosen to replace Judas,
> but whether the Apostles were right to choose Mathias. The Bible shows

So now you reject the authority of the Apostles! You demand evidence in
the first century, but after this demand is met, you demand evidence of
it in Scripture. When this demand is met, you trash Scripture and whine
that the evidence isn't in the Didache. When it's shown you are lying
again and the evidence is in the Didache, you whine that it's not
Apostolic. When you are again shown it follows from Apostolic
authority, you again trash Scripture, and say, "But that's not the issue
at hand..."

Put your toys back in the toy chest, Stevie.

> many cases in which people - including the Apostles - made some very
> bad choices and some in which people - including the Apostles - sinned.

Gasp! You mean they weren't sinless??? Wow! What a genius wonder boy
we have on the list! Thanks for enlightening us, O' Son of Gunderscored!

But, now I'm confused. You asked for Apostolic evidence. I gave it to
you. Why do you now attack the personal character of the Apostles after
demanding of me that I use them as a source of proof? Please, can you
offer a consistent harangue in just one post?

> Keep in mind that the same meeting that chose Mathias also prohibited
> Gentiles from eating meat sacrificed to Pagan idols and Paul had to

That's a lie. And you do so freely because you hope no one will look up
the material themselves.

Acts 1:12 (when they started the meeting) to the end of the chapter:

"Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of
Olives, a Sabbath day's walk[b] from the city. 13When they arrived, they
went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were
Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and
Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of
James. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the
women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[c] (a group
numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the
Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago
through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for
those who arrested Jesus– 17he was one of our number and shared in this
ministry.”

18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field;
there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines
spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called
that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, “ ‘May
his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[d] and, “ ‘May another take
his place of leadership.’[e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one
of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in
and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus
was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of
his resurrection.”

23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as
Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone's
heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this
apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26Then
they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the
eleven apostles."

And then it goes into chapter 2, forward in time to the Pentecost.
There's nothing there about food or idols. Please, save your phony
"history" for your uneducated Calvary Chapel friends.

> countermand this decree in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8. So, I don't know how
> far I would trust this decision, since we know that at least one
> decision reached at this "sit down" was wrong.

You lie again. 1 Corinthians 8:7-8 countermanded nothing from the
Apostles, Lerner. These passages were directed at Jewish converts who
had problems in associating themselves with pagan idols. Note the
context, by looking at the complete set of passages...

1 Corinthians 8:1-8 --
1 "Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have
knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2And if anyone thinks
that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But
if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

4Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we
know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other
God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or
on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6yet for us there is
one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

7However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with
consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an
idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8But food does not
commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do
not eat are we the worse."

But according to your ignorant rant, when Paul says that for us
(Christians) "there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and
we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and
through whom we live", he is excluding the Apostles in the next
sentence, "there is not in everyone that knowledge"!

Note, once again, that you didn't post the passage to provide your
evidence and a context. But that would be the honest means to engage in
discourse, so we can't have that.

Speaking of pagan idols, this raises another interesting question. If
food from the pagan idols wasn't a problem for Paul, and he didn't care
if men remained uncut, would he have been perturbed by pagan art (as
you've designated any art of a Christian nature)?

>
> Also, you have to be careful with the "Lukan" legends in Acts. The

No, we have to read your ramblings with the clear understanding that
you're not a Christian, and that you discount most of the books that are
universally regarded as Scripture by believing Christians.

> entire Matthias episode clearly falls into the realm of legendary
> embellishment.

Ah, yes! The pink elephants, walking on water, and fairy godmothers in
the chapter are dead giveaways! Really, Lerner, there is nothing
mythical in the passages in question. In fact, it segues into the
Pentecost. Is that a mythical event for the Pentecostals in your
Calvary Chapel? Is it a mythical event for Kerby? You've just stated
that the contents of Luke are legends. I'll be sure to remind you of
your words later.

This really is all good entertainment, Lerner. You wrote above, "You

have no ingredients of Apostolic succession at all. Show me one passage
in Scripture where anyone, who was appointed to a Church office, was
called a successor to any Apostle. No amount of Orthodox scripture
twisting can show this!"

Those are your exact words. But look at what happened... I proved to
you that in fact here is one passage in Scripture where the Apostles got
together and appointed to a Church office a new successor to the Apostle
Judas. And it didn't require any Scriptural twisting. So what do you
do? Play the buffoon and pretend you just weren't handed another
virtual butt whupping.

>>>And, who is the true Apostolic successor in New York City. Tell
>
> me.
>
>>>There are nearly 1/2 dozen Orthodox Bishops which claim this city
>
> as
>
>>>their "region". This is a clear violation of Church Canon Law.
>
> your
>
>>>Church cannot even follow the rules that it created for itself!
>
>
>>Which bishops are you referring to? Provide us the names and their
>>jurisdictions and we'll easily explain it to you. But you won't,
>>because you can't, because you don't know your head from a hole in
>
> the
>
>>ground when it comes to the OC.
>
>
> New York City has 3 Greek Orthodox Bishops, an Orthodox Church in
> America Bishop, a Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop, an Antiochian Orthodox
> Bishop, a Serbian Orthodox Bishop, a Russian Orthodox Church Outside
> Russia Bishop, and 2 Greek Orthodox - Old Calendarists Bishops of
> various stripes.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The Serbian bishop is
Old Calendarist as well. You've not did your homework, and are confused
by those groups, constituting less than 1% of Orthodox, who add the
moniker "True" or "Genuine" before their jurisdictions. These folks are
certainly in schism. But the other bishops, except for ROCOR (at least
for the time being), are in jurisdictions that constitute the remaining
99% of Orthodoxy, are in full communion, and share the exact same
doctrines and teachings about Scripture. Again, as with the word
"monarchial", you throw around the term "Old Calendarist" without a clue
to its meaing, and without a clue that 99% of them are in the same
Church as the New Calendarists. They are the same Church, Lerner.
Sorry, but your harangue fails again.

> You really should come to the big city some time Joe. You will see
> that your Church can't even follow its own soft rules.

What rules were broken, Lerner? I asked you repeatedly for a citation
of the canon laws, and you can't do it. I've an idea what you are
referring to, but I'm giving you the rope so I can watch you once again
hang yourself by expressing a profound ignorance in what you're reading.
So please cite your sources.

>>>>The Scriptures are quite clear.
>
>
>>>Indeed they are. There is no mention of Apostolic succession or of
>
> a
>
>>>>monarchical Bishop in the Bible.
>
>
>>There's no "monarchial" bishop in the OC. Our bishops are elected,
>
> not
>
>>inheritors of their office by birth, which is what "monarchial"
>
> means.
>
>>But we already know plain English gives you difficulty.
>
>
> Once again, you dodge the issue: there is no mention of Apostolic
> succession in the Bible.

No, you are not responding to what I just wrote, instead repeating your
lie. Matthias is an example Apostolic succession. Looks like our troll
forgot to snip the material above. Whoooops!

>>You've made a failed attempt to shift the attention away from your
>
> claim
>
>>that there were no bishops in the first century, and have been
>
> soundly
>
>>spanked (again). What fruits you've produced from Papa's money.
>
>
> At least my father has money.

Note the lack of fruits to show for it.

>>>These were invented later in Church
>>
>>That's an utter lie, Stevie. Go and read chapter 15 in the Didache.
>
>
> The liar is you. The original text, which you dishonestly edited said:
>
> "Indeed they are. There is no mention of Apostolic succession or of a
> monarchical Bishop in the Bible. These were invented later in Church
> history and for purely human-political reasons."

I edited nothing. That would be your domain, especially in regards to
God's holy Word. You again repeated your lying harangue. Our bishops
are not monarchial. I realize you're too lazy to read a dictionary to
learn the meaning of the word "monarchial", but at least make an effort
to clean up the sloppy abuse of the English language. Bishops were
indeed in Scripture. You up above called me a liar for pointing out
your bogus claim on this matter of bishops, but here you again assert
the bogus claim that there is no mention of them in the Bible. The
silly addition of the word "monarchial" doesn't save you from being a
dishonest web hack.

By the way, Lerner, you ought to read the OT for a change. Clearly you
don't know the NT, so let's watch you flounder in the rough seas of
Jewish thought shall we? Let's go with this for starters... Did you
know that the eldership in the old Temple was indeed monarchial, passing
on their titles and jobs to their sons?

> Do you believe that G_d will reward you for your lies? But then again,
> your god is your very human organization - the Orthodox Church.
>
> Learner

I don't believe in the existence of Gunderscored, so don't threaten me
with your false idols. I instead choose to follow the Christ, whose
Body is the pillar of truth, exactly as the holy Word teaches us. But
that's none of your concern, being that you're not a Christian.

[Joe Orthodox]

roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> Learner wrote:
>
>>Your Church says [regardless of what Paul said] that a Bishop must be
>>the husband of no wife. Your Church did this for very earthly
>
> reasons.
>
> I'm not sure I understand why the church cannot decide this. The
> scripture only prohibits 2 wives, not none.

Thank you for the common sense in simple English usage, Roger.
Hopefully it will rub off on our friend.

[Joe Orthodox]

Stephen M. Adams wrote:

> Responding to "Learner" is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Or a lemon harangue.

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
>
>>>But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox Bishop?
>>>Let's see.....
>
>
>>Close enough so that the differences are insignificant.
>
>
> No they are not, as we will discuss in a moment.

No you won't discuss. Let's see...

>>>> For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in
>>>> order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I
>>>> directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the
>>>> husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused
>>>> of issipation or rebellion.
>>>
>>>Well now. Paul said that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife,
>
> yet
>
>>>your Church says that a Bishop must be the husband of no wife. You
>
> are
>
>>>comparing apples and oranges.
>
>
>>Uhm, no. Please study the original Greek text. It says "man of one
>>woman" i and this s a description of what it means to be above
>
> reproach.
>
>>Nothing in the Greek text can be used to *insist* on marraige of
>
> bishops.
>
> Which is not the point. Paul did not require a Bishop to be
> un-married. You are attempting to brush off what Paul said.

Paul didn't say anything prohibiting unmarried bishops, Lerner. That
would be a strange thing given that he advocated celibacy for even
regular Christians if they were able. So why do you refuse to post
"what Paul said", if they are evidence against Orthodoxy, hmmmmm? No
one's brushing off anything because there's nothing there. If you
believe otherwise, then post it, rather than yap like a poodle at the
cars in the street.

>>That said, the Orthodox Church has had married bishops, and
>
> Metropolitan
>
>>+PHILIP of the Antiochian church is on record as believing that we
>
> should
>
>>return to the ancient practice.
>
>
> Good for him. The Church made this decision based on politics and
> greed, not the teachings of Paul.

What teachings of Paul? The one where he says bishops are to have only
one wife? So why do your Calvary Church leaders get divorced and
remarried multiple times? Three people have corrected you on this in
this thread, one of whom isn't Orthodox. Very interesting that you
can't understand the passages in question, the plain words of which the
rest of us agree on. Please, you pretend in selective instances to care
what Scripture says, but when you're cornered on your lies you take out
the axe and start attacking it.

>>>Of course the Church had leaders. See my early post on how these
>>>offices evolved with some disappearing over time.
>
>
>>Look at exactly what transpires. Look at the authority that Paul
>>gives to Titus. Look at what he is told to do. It's *exactly* the
>>role of the Bishop.
>
>
> But a modern Bishop goes far beyond what Paul said. Aftger Clement,

Clement was a peer of Paul, and Paul commends him in Philemon as someone
who's going to heaven. So I guess you believe Paul made a "bad mistake"
as well, because he committed the terrible sin of thinking highly of
someone who teaches the commonly accepted practice of Apostolic succession?

> the next step in the development of the myth of Apostolicity comes from

Wrong. There was no next step. There were bishops during Paul's time,
and you've demonstrated not a whit of difference between their authority
to pick and choose their successors and the same authority in our
bishops today.

> Ignatius, who was a fanatic. Ignatius mentioned in Magnesians 6 that

Wow! Scary! A fanatic! Hope he wasn't as fanatical as Paul, or... Jesus!

> the bishop presides "in the place of G_d." By saying this, Ignatius
> introduced the notion of a monarchical bishop with uncommon authority

Do you know the meaning of the English word "monarch?" Are you that
ignorant to not know that it's a hereditary office? That is not the way
we choose bishops, Stevie.

> and gives evidence that by this time, and in his community, the
> evolution of the Church into an authoritarian hierarchical structure
> was under-way.

Tell us exactly what "authoritarian" powers an Orthodox bishop has today
which he didn't have in Paul's day. Please do, teach us our own
religion since you apparently know so much more than we, an amazing feat
given that you're not Orthodox nor were ever and apparently have left
Christianity entirely.

>>>Come on now, that is a huge leap of the imagination to equate a
>
> first
>
>>>century Bishop with a modern Metropolitan. Early Bishops were
>
> elected
>
>>>by their congregations. When the Byzantine Empire made the Church
>>>"official", the Emperor appointed Bishops. After Nicea II, Bishops
>>>elected other Bishops. Today, the Turkish Ministry of Religious
>>>Affairs calls the shots.
>
>
>>Funny, I don't recall any representatives of the Turkish government
>>being at the meeting of the clergy and laity that elected our new
>>Bishops last year.
>
>
> That is not what I said, you are becoming more and more like Joe -

It's exactly what you said.

>>And I think the people in the OCA and in Russia
>>would be surprised to hear that Turkey designates their bishops.
>
>
> I never said that.

It's exactly what you implied, and have done so for quite some time. You
believe our bishops are chosen by kings, and are monarchs themselves.
Tell us which Byzantine Emperor appointed our Metropolitans, Patriarchs,
and Bishops that we have today. How about backing your harangues up
with reality.

>>You really ought to study a bit more before you open your mouth.
>
>
> So should you.
>
>
>>>By the way, in the early church there was no
>>>"rank" distinction between the presbyter and episkopos.
>
>
>>Look above - the book of Titus clearly shows the role of overseer
>>as superior - he is appointing presbyters and is not subject to
>>them in any way.
>
>
>>>Indeed they are. There is no mention of Apostolic succession or of
>
> a
>
>>>monarchical Bishop in the Bible. These were invented later in
>
> Church
>
>>>history and for purely human-political reasons.
>
>
>>Go back and read Titus. What part of the "overseer" appointing
>>presbyters and keeping things in order don't you understand.
>
>
> So how does this support the myth of Apostolic succession? Paul did

You're changing the subject. It supports that you are wrong that there
were no bishops in Paul's day with the same authority as our bishops
have today. As Stephen said, you ought to think and study the facts
before you write, rather than cavalierly throw around the word "myth" in
the wasted hope that "Learner" the Net Troll's word is good enough.

> not say, as Ignatius did, that they rule in the place of G_d.

Where did Paul or Ignatius spell God's name with underscores instead of
vowels? And what do you care what they wrote when you don't follow
their teachings, and are not Christian?

>>>I Clement, 42:7 used the term "episkopos," and this term later took
>
> on
>
>>>our modern definition of "Bishop." Clement used this term in a long
>>>letter of rebuke for which he needed some level of authority.
>
> Clement
>
>>>attempted to create authority for his letter by creating the myth
>
> that
>
>>>authority came down through the years directly from the Apostles.
>>>Clement's ideas helped to transform the organization of the Church
>
> into
>
>>>a hierarchy unlike the simpler arrangement found in the Didache.
>
>
>>Hogwash. Clement was dealing with a local problem. The doctrine
>
> that
>
>>he put forth comes RIGHT from the Scriptures.
>
>
> How does this support the myth of Apostolic succession?
>
> Learner

You're changing the subject again, because you can't deal with your loss
in the debate other than to run and hide. You've claimed that there
were no bishops in Paul's day, and were abundantly proven a net buffoon.

As Stephen Adams wrote above, there was no significant difference
between the authority of a first century bishop and one today. To this
you responded, "we will discuss in a moment", and here we are at the
bottom of the post... and you didn't discuss. You can't tell us what
bishops did then, nor what they do now, but instead can only attempt to
divert the discussion to Apostolic succession or Turkish politics. Nice
try. Transparently attempted, but still entertaining.

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Zlatoust wrote:
>
>
>> As to the argument that the church cannot fall into error because
>> of Matt. 16:18, a more careful reading of the text shows
>> differently:
>
> "...I
>
>> will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
>> This refers to the gates of hell. Gates are defensive.
>
>
> This raises an interesting question. Orthodoxy has not penetrated
> the "gates" of American society, or of global society. The Orthodox
> make up around 1% of the U.S. population and number .2 billion on a
> planet of 6.3 billion souls.

First off, Orthodox make up the second largest body of Christians in the
world. But this does raise an interesting question... How far into
American society and the world has your newly adopted Messianic
Judeo-Islamic fundamentalism penetrated, hmmmmm? You can't even
penetrate a simple news list. And how far has that Calvary Chapel you
occasionally attend penetrated? And no, that's not a reference to their
cheap girls whom proselytized you by putting out.

>> Humans are fallible, so our church will be too. This is important
>> for us to realize, otherwise we will likely fall into deception
>> when
>
> church
>
>> leaders make wrong rulings, which they have done in the past (as
>> you see) and will do again. We cannot depend on people to tell us
>> what is right and wrong. We must depend on the Holy Spirit and the
>> word of
>
> God.
>
>> We cannot give that responsibility to others., I believe.
>
>

> I blindly agree. My neo-Islamic fundamentalism is what history made it,
> and it is every bit as fallible as anything else. My neo-Islamic faith
> simply cannot tell a believer what is true or what is false, though I
> like to give the impression that it can.
>
> You simply cannot count on me to tell you what is true and what is
> false unless something contradicts my harangue of the day. As Joe
> pointed out, there is no coherency to my bumbling rants. For
> example, I ask others to prove their beliefs according to Scripture,
> but I don't even believe in Scripture. So one can see from history
> that I'm a dunderhead, though I will never admit it.
>
> If you seriously question me, you will very quickly find that I do

> not know what the truth is. I have had many discussions about St.
> George and his dragan and St. Theodore of Tyre and his monster -

> tales that I erroneously claim they teach as facts. Worse than fictional
> stories is the fact that the I celebrate my libido that is in direct
> violation of the Ten Commandments.
>
> Now, you will shortly see the less-educated trolls [i.e. Me and
> Myself] get very upset at this, because they think "only I be
> teaching the truth." The better educated in this group know that I'm
> an ignorant web hack, however I have nothing with which to reply, but to
> lie and misquote. So these folks blow me away with the truth. The
> problem is that I'm filled with a lot of information that is false,
> and if one part of my rant is incorrect, than all is open to
> question.
>
> Learner
>

[roger_...@yahoo.co.uk]

You're welcome. These discussions can get a bit unreal after a while,
don't you find? You get sucked into arguments over something that no
sensible person questions.

[AGGreen]

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

news:LvwYd.3055$gx3....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...

***That's because his cult was founded by a 1960s free sex, pot smoking,
flower child malcontent.

[AGGreen]

Learner wrote:

"You tolerate that woman
> > Jezebel... By her
> > teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality... To you
> who
> > do not
> > hold to her teaching ...I will not impose any other burden on you."
> > (Rev.
> > 2:20,24)

***I'd say Learner violated this teaching. He was seduced by a Jezebel and
lost his soul!

[AGGreen]

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

news:uRwYd.3062$gx3...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...

> Learner wrote:
>
> > Zlatoust wrote:
> >
> >
> >> As to the argument that the church cannot fall into error because
> >> of Matt. 16:18, a more careful reading of the text shows
> >> differently:
> >
> > "...I
> >
> >> will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
> >> This refers to the gates of hell. Gates are defensive.
> >
> >
> > This raises an interesting question. Orthodoxy has not penetrated
> > the "gates" of American society, or of global society. The Orthodox
> > make up around 1% of the U.S. population and number .2 billion on a
> > planet of 6.3 billion souls.
>
>
> First off, Orthodox make up the second largest body of Christians in the
> world. But this does raise an interesting question... How far into
> American society and the world has your newly adopted Messianic
> Judeo-Islamic fundamentalism penetrated, hmmmmm? You can't even
> penetrate a simple news list. And how far has that Calvary Chapel you
> occasionally attend penetrated? And no, that's not a reference to their
> cheap girls whom proselytized you by putting out.

***I disagree. I think his Jezebel is the only thing he penetrated. Maybe
he'll marry her one day.

[Learner]

Stephen M. Adams wrote:

> >> >But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox
Bishop?
> >> >Let's see.....
> >> Close enough so that the differences are insignificant.

> >No they are not, as we will discuss in a moment.

> It's pointless - when refuted, you simply waive your hands and move
> off in an different direction.

The problem here is that I have not been refuted at all. A Bishop of
the first century is not the same as what we have today. The office of
Bishop evolved over time.

The early organization of Christian Churches was patterned on the
organization of the Jewish synagogue. There was a group of presbyters
and/or bishops and these terms were functionally synonymous.

A little further down the road the presbyter(s) who ran the
Church's/community's finances were called Bishops. In fact, in large
towns, all of the community's finances were managed by a "ruling
Bishop". Historians who have studied the office of a first century
Bishop [Harnack, for example] conclude that Bishops were responsible
for the Church's finances and worship but had no other authority and
had no disciplinary powers over members of the Church. It was the
college of presbyters who had authority and disciplinary power over the
Church, and held it until the 2nd century - not the Bishop. This,
alone, is very different that what the Orthodox Church has today.

Really, up to the mid 2nd century, the historical record shows that
there were very different forms of Church government across various
Christian communities. There were, for example, Churches which had no
presbyters. There were others that had no bishops. Some Churches had
leaders who were sometimes called Bishops, and sometimes called
presbyters.

The idea of a monarchic Bishop arose for the sake of doctrinal unity
during the Gnostic period.

The evolution of the office of Bishop can be traced this way: Ignatius
saw the Bishop as a "center" of Christian unity. Irenaeus saw the
Bishop as a "depositary" of the truth of the Apostle. Cyprian saw the
Bishop as the representative of Christ in all things spiritual.

> I'm limiting this to one question:

> Do you accept the idea that doctrines can develop over time
> without straying from the original intent of the Apostles?

I can accept that this could happen in some cases. However, in this
case history shows that the concept of Apostolic succession is nothing
more than a myth which evolved over time. What amazes me about
Orthodoxy is that it appears to be very sure about things [to the point
of pronouncing anthema on those who disagree] which have no support in
Scripture or in history.

If the Apostles believed in the concept of Apostolic succession, then
why didn't they spell it out in Scripture?

> Or do you think that all "valid" doctrine must be fully developed
> during Apostolic times?

Your Church 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."

Therefore, I would assume that an important issue, such as the idea of
Apostolic succession, would/could be traced back to the Apostles.

> I'd appreciate an honest, direct answer. A third option that you
> come up with is OK. Just be prepared to defend your point.

Done.

Learner

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:
> > Which is not the point. Paul did not require a Bishop to be
> > un-married. You are attempting to brush off what Paul said.

> Paul didn't say anything prohibiting unmarried bishops, Lerner. That

> would be a strange thing given that he advocated celibacy for even
> regular Christians if they were able. So why do you refuse to post
> "what Paul said", if they are evidence against Orthodoxy, hmmmmm? No

> one's brushing off anything because there's nothing there. If you
> believe otherwise, then post it, rather than yap like a poodle at the

> cars in the street.

Which, once again, is not the point. How can the Church impose a rule
that Paul did not? Did Bishops who lived centuries after Paul, some of
whom were married, know better?

> > But a modern Bishop goes far beyond what Paul said. Aftger
Clement,

> Clement was a peer of Paul, and Paul commends him in Philemon as
someone
> who's going to heaven. So I guess you believe Paul made a "bad
mistake"
> as well, because he committed the terrible sin of thinking highly of
> someone who teaches the commonly accepted practice of Apostolic
succession?

Hmmm, so Philemon could never lose his salvation?

Clement never taught anything close to Apostolic succession. Clement
said that the Apostles appointed the "overseers" for the Churches and
this has nothing to do with these people being "successors" to the
Apostles. Also, your Church does not consider Clement's works fo be
divinely inspired. Clement also considered the Didache, which has no
concept of Apostolic succession, as inspired Scripture. A little odd
that he would contradict himself, if your claim is correct - which it
is not.

> > the next step in the development of the myth of Apostolicity comes
from

> Wrong. There was no next step. There were bishops during Paul's
time,
> and you've demonstrated not a whit of difference between their
authority
> to pick and choose their successors and the same authority in our
> bishops today.

No, I proved this to be the case from the historical record.

> > the bishop presides "in the place of G_d." By saying this,
Ignatius
> > introduced the notion of a monarchical bishop with uncommon
authority

> Do you know the meaning of the English word "monarch?" Are you that
> ignorant to not know that it's a hereditary office? That is not the
way
> we choose bishops, Stevie.

Actually, you are the ignorant one, as usual. The monarchic episcopate
[and the Catholics use this term, by the way] is called such because in
it, the Bishop is more powerful than any other office in the Church.
There is no evidence of a monarchic episcopate until late in the 2nd
Century A.D.. The Christian Church was far less hierarchic then than
it became later. This is not Learner's opinion, this is the opinion of
the majority of historians.

> > and gives evidence that by this time, and in his community, the
> > evolution of the Church into an authoritarian hierarchical
structure
> > was under-way.

> Tell us exactly what "authoritarian" powers an Orthodox bishop has
today
> which he didn't have in Paul's day. Please do, teach us our own
> religion since you apparently know so much more than we, an amazing
feat
> given that you're not Orthodox nor were ever and apparently have left

> Christianity entirely.

See my answer to Mr. Adams.

> It's exactly what you implied, and have done so for quite some time.
You
> believe our bishops are chosen by kings, and are monarchs themselves.

> Tell us which Byzantine Emperor appointed our Metropolitans,
Patriarchs,
> and Bishops that we have today. How about backing your harangues up
> with reality.

Uh, the 7th Ecumenical Council forbade the Emperor the power to name
Bishops, unlike many earlier centuries. So, once again, your Church is
not even historically consistent with itself.

> > So how does this support the myth of Apostolic succession? Paul
did

> You're changing the subject. It supports that you are wrong that
there
> were no bishops in Paul's day with the same authority as our bishops
> have today. As Stephen said, you ought to think and study the facts
> before you write, rather than cavalierly throw around the word "myth"
in
> the wasted hope that "Learner" the Net Troll's word is good enough.

See my response to Mr. Adams. Really Joey, you should sit down, relax,
and let the grown-ups talk.

> You're changing the subject again, because you can't deal with your
loss
> in the debate other than to run and hide. You've claimed that there
> were no bishops in Paul's day, and were abundantly proven a net
buffoon.

You are a liar, ignorant, or both. Go back and read what I wrote.

> As Stephen Adams wrote above, there was no significant difference
> between the authority of a first century bishop and one today. To
this
> you responded, "we will discuss in a moment", and here we are at the
> bottom of the post... and you didn't discuss. You can't tell us what

> bishops did then, nor what they do now, but instead can only attempt
to
> divert the discussion to Apostolic succession or Turkish politics.
Nice
> try. Transparently attempted, but still entertaining.

Read my response to Mr. Adams. As usual, you have added nothing to the
conversation except anger and a good dose of stupidity.

Learner

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:
> Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
>
>>>>>But is a first century Bishop the same as a modern Orthodox
>
> Bishop?
>
>>>>>Let's see.....
>>>>
>>>>Close enough so that the differences are insignificant.
>
>
>>>No they are not, as we will discuss in a moment.
>
>
>>It's pointless - when refuted, you simply waive your hands and move
>>off in an different direction.
>
>
> The problem here is that I have not been refuted at all. A Bishop of

Yes, you have been.

> the first century is not the same as what we have today. The office of

And you were asked to prove your case, and instead you wave your hands
claiming you haven't been refuted. Please tell us what powers our
bishops have today that wasn't possessed by a bishop in Paul's day.
Provide your sources. You haven't done this, and note the lack of any
supporting material on your part.

> Bishop evolved over time.

And you were asked to prove your case, and instead you wave your hands
claiming you haven't been refuted. Please provide us the information on
what powers our bishops have today that wasn't possessed by a bishop in
Paul's day. You haven't done this, and note the lack of any supporting
material on your part.

> The early organization of Christian Churches was patterned on the
> organization of the Jewish synagogue. There was a group of presbyters
> and/or bishops and these terms were functionally synonymous.

What were their functions? If they are the same offices, then why does
Paul use different words for both offices, then? You're making nonsense
up on the fly to save a failed harangue.

> A little further down the road the presbyter(s) who ran the

When down the road? Your sources?

> Church's/community's finances were called Bishops. In fact, in large

Where did you get this? What evidence do you have that the bishops in
the Didache and Paul's letters didn't meddle in financial affairs? More
arguing from silence, eh? You say: they didn't appoint clergy (proven
wrong), they had no authority in enforcing doctrine (proven wrong), now
you make a baseless claim that they didn't have anything to do with
finances until "a little further down the road." As Stephen Adams
wrote, you throw your hands up when you're refuted and start a new
direction, in this case a financial angle.

> towns, all of the community's finances were managed by a "ruling
> Bishop". Historians who have studied the office of a first century

Oh, really?

> Bishop [Harnack, for example] conclude that Bishops were responsible
> for the Church's finances and worship but had no other authority and
> had no disciplinary powers over members of the Church. It was the

Your sources??? Save us the name-dropping.

> college of presbyters who had authority and disciplinary power over the
> Church, and held it until the 2nd century - not the Bishop. This,

Your sources? Note the lack of any citation, only "Learner" the
internet troll's "good" word. It might be interesting for you to
provide source material, but given your long track record of misquotes,
it doesn't mean much at this point.

> alone, is very different that what the Orthodox Church has today.

Again, you were asked to prove your case, and instead you wave your
hands claiming you haven't been refuted. Please tell us what powers our
bishops have today that weren't possessed by a bishop in Paul's day,
followed by the appropriate material that can be traced. You haven't
done this, and note the lack of any supporting material on your part.

> Really, up to the mid 2nd century, the historical record shows that
> there were very different forms of Church government across various

Which records? You've not cited anything.

> Christian communities. There were, for example, Churches which had no
> presbyters. There were others that had no bishops. Some Churches had

Which churches didn't have presbyters? Which ones had no bishops?
Names and locations, please.

> leaders who were sometimes called Bishops, and sometimes called
> presbyters.

Those are two different offices, and you haven't proven that they were
ever interchangeable. That claim is refuted by Scripture.

> The idea of a monarchic Bishop arose for the sake of doctrinal unity
> during the Gnostic period.

But the Gnostic period was already in existence for a few decades in the
first century! Paul warns about them. What you've erroneously termed
"monarchical" (due to an inability to grasp the English language)
existed in the 1st century, thereby you refute yourself with another
inconsistent harangue.

> The evolution of the office of Bishop can be traced this way: Ignatius

Please trace it, with clear dates, clear sources, and a clear separation
of functions and authority. Rather, you dance and ruffle your feathers.

> saw the Bishop as a "center" of Christian unity. Irenaeus saw the

Your sources?

> Bishop as a "depositary" of the truth of the Apostle. Cyprian saw the

Your sources?

> Bishop as the representative of Christ in all things spiritual.

Your sources?

>>I'm limiting this to one question:
>
>
>> Do you accept the idea that doctrines can develop over time
>> without straying from the original intent of the Apostles?
>
>
> I can accept that this could happen in some cases. However, in this
> case history shows that the concept of Apostolic succession is nothing
> more than a myth which evolved over time. What amazes me about

That's a lie. This is an example where you were refuted handily
multiple times, but you'll continue throwing confetti up in the air and
yell, "La la la la la la..."

Acts 1:15-26 -- "And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was

surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord,
who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to
take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by
transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they cast
their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the
eleven apostles."

> Orthodoxy is that it appears to be very sure about things [to the point
> of pronouncing anthema on those who disagree] which have no support in
> Scripture or in history.

Acts 1:15-26 -- "And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was

surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord,
who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to
take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by
transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they cast
their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the
eleven apostles."

> If the Apostles believed in the concept of Apostolic succession, then
> why didn't they spell it out in Scripture?

They did.

Acts 1:15-26 -- "And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was

surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord,
who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to
take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by
transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they cast
their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the
eleven apostles."

>> Or do you think that all "valid" doctrine must be fully developed
>> during Apostolic times?
>
>
>
> Your Church 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."

That's true.

> Therefore, I would assume that an important issue, such as the idea of
> Apostolic succession, would/could be traced back to the Apostles.

It is.

Acts 1:15-26 -- "And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was

surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord,
who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to
take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by
transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they cast
their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the
eleven apostles."

>>I'd appreciate an honest, direct answer. A third option that you
>>come up with is OK. Just be prepared to defend your point.
>
>
> Done.

You did nothing of the sort. He asked:

"Do you accept the idea that doctrines can develop over time without
straying from the original intent of the Apostles?

Or do you think that all "valid" doctrine must be fully developed during
Apostolic times?

I'd appreciate an honest, direct answer. A third option that you

come up with is OK. Just be prepared to defend your point."

"Learner", you didn't answer his first question, you snipped and ignored
the second one, and of course it's a given you would snip and ignore the
much harder third part which requires a modicum of education in
Christian history and logical coherency.

> Learner
>

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

> > So Paul said that a Bishop must be unmarried?

> No he didn't. And you thusly, fallaciously conclude that such a
silence
> (again) is proof that he believed the opposite. Really, Stevie,
you've
> got nothing to help you on this. You got Scripture wrong, you got
the
> Didache wrong. You blew it.

Then on what authority does your Church require a Bishop to be
unmarried? Economic/political needs perhaps?

> > And your Bishop played with a woman's breast, while drunk, in a
Casino!

> Say what? You don't even know who my bishop is. Tell me, O' Love
Child
> of Miss Cleo, what does your crystal ball say about the color of my
> bishop's underwear?

He is an Orthodox Bishop, is he not? As for the color of your Bishop's
underwear - you tell me!

> Quite interesting that you can't let a day go by
> without a post mentioning women's body parts, whether its breasts or
> hymens. You're pseudo-piety is a joke and you and I both know it
;-))))

Unlike your Liturgy, which is obsessed with this things, I really don't
care if Mary had additional children. I do care when a Bishop get
drunk and makes a boob of himself.

> They could have been elected by a synod of other bishops, which is
> consistent with Orthodox practice. There are different forms of
> democracy and voting, Lerner. The fact is that you made an
affirmative
> assertion that the Didache says the bishops were elected by
> congregations and it says no such thing. You know it, but don't care

> about the facts. The truth, for you, is beside the point.

The historical record shows that Bishops have been elected by different
groups throughout history. Sometimes by the congregation, sometimes
by the presbyters of each congregation, sometimes by other Bishops,
sometimes by the Emperor.

> You don't know your head from a hole in the ground when it
> comes to the subject matter at hand, and I'll be there to highlight
it
> as long as you feel the need to express it in this list.

Look who is talking!

> So what special power and authority did they have if their councils
were
> wrong and their simple decision to simply pick an Apostolic successor

> was a bad mistake?

Because their other decision was also a mistake.

> > Keep in mind that the same meeting that chose Mathias also
prohibited
> > Gentiles from eating meat sacrificed to Pagan idols and Paul had to

> That's a lie. And you do so freely because you hope no one will look
up
> the material themselves.

> Acts 1:12 (when they started the meeting) to the end of the chapter:

.....

and you stop at:

> 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added
to the
> eleven apostles."

> And then it goes into chapter 2, forward in time to the Pentecost.
> There's nothing there about food or idols. Please, save your phony
> "history" for your uneducated Calvary Chapel friends.

Your are either ignorant, dishonest, or lazy.

Verses 28-29:

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with
anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from
food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these
things.

> > countermand this decree in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8. So, I don't know
how
> > far I would trust this decision, since we know that at least one
> > decision reached at this "sit down" was wrong.

> You lie again. 1 Corinthians 8:7-8 countermanded nothing from the
> Apostles, Lerner. These passages were directed at Jewish converts
who
> had problems in associating themselves with pagan idols. Note the
> context, by looking at the complete set of passages...

No, you are the liar, as Paul's words show:

Verses 4-7:

"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol
is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For
even if there are socalled gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as
indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is
but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we
live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things
came and through whom we live.

But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to
idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been
sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is
defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we
do not eat, and no better if we do."

> Note, once again, that you didn't post the passage to provide your
> evidence and a context. But that would be the honest means to engage
in
> discourse, so we can't have that.

At least I can see that it refers to food sacrificed to Pagan idols!

> Speaking of pagan idols, this raises another interesting question.
If
> food from the pagan idols wasn't a problem for Paul, and he didn't
care
> if men remained uncut, would he have been perturbed by pagan art (as
> you've designated any art of a Christian nature)?

Because Paul believed that there was no power in these things. Icons,
like statues of Apollo are intended to convery veneration to a
prototype - which is spiritually Pagan to the core, and harmful.

> This really is all good entertainment, Lerner. You wrote above, "You

> have no ingredients of Apostolic succession at all. Show me one
passage
> in Scripture where anyone, who was appointed to a Church office, was
> called a successor to any Apostle. No amount of Orthodox scripture
> twisting can show this!"

True.

> Those are your exact words. But look at what happened... I proved to

> you that in fact here is one passage in Scripture where the Apostles
got
> together and appointed to a Church office a new successor to the
Apostle
> Judas. And it didn't require any Scriptural twisting. So what do
you
> do? Play the buffoon and pretend you just weren't handed another
> virtual butt whupping.

It doesn't really support Apostolic Succession at all, in fact, the
choice that was made turned out to be wrong - and the choice was made
by casting lots! Jesus Christ chose someone to replace Judas and Paul
was it. This is what is supported in Scripture - G_d chooses, not men.
When, according to the Bible, were others Apostles appointed following
the relatively early deaths of a number of the original 12? Can't find
that, can you Joey?

Also, when Mathias was added as a replacement, not a successor, for
Judas, it was to keep the number of Apostles at twelve. Your illogic
indicates that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox should only have twelve
Bishops?

> > New York City has 3 Greek Orthodox Bishops, an Orthodox Church in
> > America Bishop, a Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop, an Antiochian Orthodox
> > Bishop, a Serbian Orthodox Bishop, a Russian Orthodox Church
Outside
> > Russia Bishop, and 2 Greek Orthodox - Old Calendarists Bishops of
> > various stripes.
>
> You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Yes I do. New York City has more than one Orthodox Bishop

> The Serbian bishop is Old Calendarist as well.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that this city has more than one
Bishop.

> > You really should come to the big city some time Joe. You will see
> > that your Church can't even follow its own soft rules.

> What rules were broken, Lerner? I asked you repeatedly for a
citation
> of the canon laws, and you can't do it. I've an idea what you are
> referring to, but I'm giving you the rope so I can watch you once
again
> hang yourself by expressing a profound ignorance in what you're
reading.
> So please cite your sources.

1st Ecumenical Council (Nicea), Canon VIII:

"Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide
for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be
evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two
bishops in the city."

Learner

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

> > Church's/community's finances were called Bishops. In fact, in
large

> Where did you get this? What evidence do you have that the bishops
in
> the Didache and Paul's letters didn't meddle in financial affairs?

I said that they ran the financial affairs of the Church:

"A little further down the road the presbyter(s) who ran the

Church's/community's finances were called Bishops. In fact, in large

towns, all of the community's finances were managed by a "ruling
Bishop". Historians who have studied the office of a first century

Bishop [Harnack, for example] conclude that Bishops were responsible
for the Church's finances and worship but had no other authority and
had no disciplinary powers over members of the Church."

> Morearguing from silence, eh? You say: they didn't appoint clergy

>(proven wrong), they had no authority in enforcing doctrine (proven
> wrong),

They did not appoint clergy - a college of presbyters did this.

> now you make a baseless claim that they didn't have anything to do
with
> finances until "a little further down the road." As Stephen Adams
> wrote, you throw your hands up when you're refuted and start a new
> direction, in this case a financial angle.

Not only I, but the majority of scholars including Harnack, Holtzmann
and Hatch.

I think you need to actually read what I wrote before you respond. You
really make an ass of yourself - probably a life-long habit.

Learner

[AGGreen]

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110825045.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
> > > Which is not the point. Paul did not require a Bishop to be
> > > un-married. You are attempting to brush off what Paul said.
>
> > Paul didn't say anything prohibiting unmarried bishops, Lerner. That
>
> > would be a strange thing given that he advocated celibacy for even
> > regular Christians if they were able. So why do you refuse to post
> > "what Paul said", if they are evidence against Orthodoxy, hmmmmm? No
>
> > one's brushing off anything because there's nothing there. If you
> > believe otherwise, then post it, rather than yap like a poodle at the
>
> > cars in the street.
>
> Which, once again, is not the point. How can the Church impose a rule
> that Paul did not?

***Since when is St. Paul the deciding factor in what The Body of Christ,
Christ Himself, says or does?

[Joe Orthodox]

Since you chose to snip and run from the previous message, here you go
again. Sorry, Stevie, but you're the one making a behind of yourself by
being wrong about Scripture and anything Christian.

Learner wrote:

> Bishop evolved over time.

> A little further down the road the presbyter(s) who ran the

When down the road? Your sources?

> Church's/community's finances were called Bishops. In fact, in large

Where did you get this? What evidence do you have that the bishops in

the Didache and Paul's letters didn't meddle in financial affairs? More

arguing from silence, eh? You say: they didn't appoint clergy (proven

wrong), they had no authority in enforcing doctrine (proven wrong), now

you make a baseless claim that they didn't have anything to do with
finances until "a little further down the road." As Stephen Adams
wrote, you throw your hands up when you're refuted and start a new
direction, in this case a financial angle.

> towns, all of the community's finances were managed by a "ruling
> Bishop". Historians who have studied the office of a first century

Oh, really?

> Bishop [Harnack, for example] conclude that Bishops were responsible
> for the Church's finances and worship but had no other authority and

[AGGreen]

***Poor Little Learner
Who has lost his way,
Boo-Hoo, boo-hoo, boo-hoo!!

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

news:mMpZd.3754$hu3....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>>>Which is not the point. Paul did not require a Bishop to be
>>>un-married. You are attempting to brush off what Paul said.
>
>
>>Paul didn't say anything prohibiting unmarried bishops, Lerner. That
>
>
>>would be a strange thing given that he advocated celibacy for even
>>regular Christians if they were able. So why do you refuse to post
>>"what Paul said", if they are evidence against Orthodoxy, hmmmmm? No
>
>
>>one's brushing off anything because there's nothing there. If you
>>believe otherwise, then post it, rather than yap like a poodle at the
>
>
>>cars in the street.
>
>
> Which, once again, is not the point. How can the Church impose a rule
> that Paul did not? Did Bishops who lived centuries after Paul, some of
> whom were married, know better?

But Paul imposed no rule that "mandated" marriage. You were asked
repeatedly to provide the proof... but nothing except, "The Steelers won
the game in overtime. There, I provided your proof that Paul was a
transvestite."

Your bishops-must-be-married rule is an idiotic claim given that he
promoted celibacy, and Christ and many of his followers led celibate
lives, not to mention your contrived rule is not in Scripture. Really,
Learner, you're the only one so far in this discussion who can't
understand plain grammar. It looks like you're trying to back read your
own sexual practices in the first century.

>>>But a modern Bishop goes far beyond what Paul said. Aftger
>
> Clement,
>
>
>>Clement was a peer of Paul, and Paul commends him in Philemon as
>
> someone
>
>>who's going to heaven. So I guess you believe Paul made a "bad
>
> mistake"
>
>>as well, because he committed the terrible sin of thinking highly of
>>someone who teaches the commonly accepted practice of Apostolic
>
> succession?
>
> Hmmm, so Philemon could never lose his salvation?

That's not what I asked. Do you think Paul made a "bad mistake?"

> Clement never taught anything close to Apostolic succession. Clement

You contradict yourself again. You've written, and not for the first
time
(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/a0b5b2a1379723bd/d5742844c65f9aa6?q=learner+clement+succession#d5742844c65f9aa6):

"In Clement's opinion, Apostolic succession is passed onto the
presbyter/bishops."

I can see your response coming... "but that's not the point. It's
raining outside and the high tomorrow will be in the 50's."

> said that the Apostles appointed the "overseers" for the Churches and
> this has nothing to do with these people being "successors" to the
> Apostles. Also, your Church does not consider Clement's works fo be

Your sources? Your harangues contradict themselves.

> divinely inspired. Clement also considered the Didache, which has no
> concept of Apostolic succession, as inspired Scripture. A little odd

Your sources? Sorry, Stevie, it takes more than your word alone, given
your long track record of misquotes and phony sources.

> that he would contradict himself, if your claim is correct - which it
> is not.

The only one contradicting himself would be "Learner."

>>>the next step in the development of the myth of Apostolicity comes
>
> from
>
>
>>Wrong. There was no next step. There were bishops during Paul's
>
> time,
>
>>and you've demonstrated not a whit of difference between their
>
> authority
>
>>to pick and choose their successors and the same authority in our
>>bishops today.
>
>
> No, I proved this to be the case from the historical record.

Where? Diversions.

>>>the bishop presides "in the place of G_d." By saying this,
>
> Ignatius
>
>>>introduced the notion of a monarchical bishop with uncommon
>
> authority
>
>
>>Do you know the meaning of the English word "monarch?" Are you that
>>ignorant to not know that it's a hereditary office? That is not the
>
> way
>
>>we choose bishops, Stevie.
>
>
> Actually, you are the ignorant one, as usual. The monarchic episcopate

No, Learner. Go read a dictionary for a change. A monarch is one who
rules by heredity, like the elders you read about in the OT. We don't
have that practice in the OC. For someone who's taken up a form of
Messianic Judaism lately, it's surprising you don't know your OT...
well, actually it's not surprising. My bad.

> Century A.D.. The Christian Church was far less hierarchic then than
> it became later. This is not Learner's opinion, this is the opinion of
> the majority of historians.

That's exactly what it is... "Learner's" opinion. The fact that you
feel the need to requalify your opinion, without an shred of evidence,
as not yours merely reaffirms that's what it is.

>>>and gives evidence that by this time, and in his community, the
>>>evolution of the Church into an authoritarian hierarchical
>
> structure
>
>>>was under-way.
>
>
>>Tell us exactly what "authoritarian" powers an Orthodox bishop has
>
> today
>
>>which he didn't have in Paul's day. Please do, teach us our own
>>religion since you apparently know so much more than we, an amazing
>
> feat
>
>>given that you're not Orthodox nor were ever and apparently have left
>
>
>>Christianity entirely.
>
>
> See my answer to Mr. Adams.

You didn't answer Mr. Adams. He gave you a challenge. He asked:

"Do you accept the idea that doctrines can develop over time without
straying from the original intent of the Apostles?

Or do you think that all "valid" doctrine must be fully developed during
Apostolic times?

I'd appreciate an honest, direct answer. A third option that you
come up with is OK. Just be prepared to defend your point."

"Learner", you didn't answer his first question, you snipped and ignored
the second one, and of course it's a given you would snip and ignore the
much harder third part which requires a modicum of education in
Christian history and logical coherency.

>>It's exactly what you implied, and have done so for quite some time.
>
> You
>
>>believe our bishops are chosen by kings, and are monarchs themselves.
>
>
>>Tell us which Byzantine Emperor appointed our Metropolitans,
>
> Patriarchs,
>
>>and Bishops that we have today. How about backing your harangues up
>>with reality.
>
>
> Uh, the 7th Ecumenical Council forbade the Emperor the power to name

But wait a minute... would the real harangue please stand up? You've
ranted without end that the OC was a creature of the Emperor, now you
take the opposite view, that they told the Emperor what to do. Whenever
you want to want to blame the OC for misdeeds of a government, you cry
that the OC controls that government. But when you want to believe the
OC doesn't determine correct theology freely, you cry they determine
theology by orders from the government. Which is it, Stevie?

> Bishops, unlike many earlier centuries. So, once again, your Church is
> not even historically consistent with itself.

So what changed? When did it change? Or, rather, is it you changing
your mind from day to day?

>>You're changing the subject again, because you can't deal with your
>
> loss
>
>>in the debate other than to run and hide. You've claimed that there
>>were no bishops in Paul's day, and were abundantly proven a net
>
> buffoon.
>
> You are a liar, ignorant, or both. Go back and read what I wrote.

Your diversions, such as "that's not the subject at hand", or "I wrote
it... somewhere else", doesn't salvage your butt from the fire you
landed it in with your defeated debating points taken from your
missionary play book.

>>As Stephen Adams wrote above, there was no significant difference
>>between the authority of a first century bishop and one today. To
>
> this
>
>>you responded, "we will discuss in a moment", and here we are at the
>>bottom of the post... and you didn't discuss. You can't tell us what
>
>
>>bishops did then, nor what they do now, but instead can only attempt
>
> to
>
>>divert the discussion to Apostolic succession or Turkish politics.
>
> Nice
>
>>try. Transparently attempted, but still entertaining.
>
>
> Read my response to Mr. Adams. As usual, you have added nothing to the
> conversation except anger and a good dose of stupidity.
>
> Learner

Or so you'd wish. You didn't answer Mr. Adams. He gave you a
challenge. He asked:

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>
>>>So Paul said that a Bishop must be unmarried?
>
>
>>No he didn't. And you thusly, fallaciously conclude that such a
>
> silence
>
>>(again) is proof that he believed the opposite. Really, Stevie,
>
> you've
>
>>got nothing to help you on this. You got Scripture wrong, you got
>
> the
>
>>Didache wrong. You blew it.
>
>
> Then on what authority does your Church require a Bishop to be
> unmarried? Economic/political needs perhaps?

The authority given them by Christ and the Apostles to decide what rules
are necessary for discipline. Perhaps in the west during the late
middle ages, there were economic concerns with mandating celibacy for
all clergy. Perhaps, and most likely, serving the Lord the fullest
requires the sacrifice of not having a wife and children. After all,
that's what Paul teaches. But please, it's obvious you've got your OC
and RCC talking points mixed up again. Whatever the case, you've not
salvaged your failed harangue that Paul mandated marriage for bishops.

>>>And your Bishop played with a woman's breast, while drunk, in a
>
> Casino!
>
>
>>Say what? You don't even know who my bishop is. Tell me, O' Love
>
> Child
>
>>of Miss Cleo, what does your crystal ball say about the color of my
>>bishop's underwear?
>
>
> He is an Orthodox Bishop, is he not? As for the color of your Bishop's
> underwear - you tell me!

He's an Orthodox bishop! Well, that proves your charges! How silly of
us not to see your clear reasoning. <rolling my eyes>

>>Quite interesting that you can't let a day go by
>>without a post mentioning women's body parts, whether its breasts or
>>hymens. You're pseudo-piety is a joke and you and I both know it
>
> ;-))))
>
> Unlike your Liturgy, which is obsessed with this things, I really don't
> care if Mary had additional children. I do care when a Bishop get

You don't care... yet, you spend over two years in an Orthodox forum
haranguing over just that - Mary's virginity - and other matters sexual
whether it be yours or others. You throw these occasional comments, "I
really don't care about Orthodox doing/believing XYZ", but your actions
betray your thoughts.

> drunk and makes a boob of himself.

See, here you care. For whatever reason is murky given that you're not
Orthodox, and not even Christian anymore.

>>They could have been elected by a synod of other bishops, which is
>>consistent with Orthodox practice. There are different forms of
>>democracy and voting, Lerner. The fact is that you made an
>
> affirmative
>
>>assertion that the Didache says the bishops were elected by
>>congregations and it says no such thing. You know it, but don't care
>
>
>>about the facts. The truth, for you, is beside the point.
>
>
> The historical record shows that Bishops have been elected by different
> groups throughout history. Sometimes by the congregation, sometimes
> by the presbyters of each congregation, sometimes by other Bishops,
> sometimes by the Emperor.

But let's not run from the subject at hand, Learner. You claimed the
"early" Christians who wrote/read the Didache elected their bishops by
congregation. It says no such thing in the Didache. Do I sense another
retreat into the nether regions of, "but that's not the point"?

>
>>So what special power and authority did they have if their councils
>
> were
>
>>wrong and their simple decision to simply pick an Apostolic successor
>
>
>>was a bad mistake?
>
>
> Because their other decision was also a mistake.

What other decision? The one you invented about food and idols? Your
word settles it, I suppose; Scripture is a lie, and "Learner" the
Internet Troll speaketh the holy truth!

>>>Keep in mind that the same meeting that chose Mathias also
>
> prohibited
>
>>>Gentiles from eating meat sacrificed to Pagan idols and Paul had to
>
>
>>That's a lie. And you do so freely because you hope no one will look
>
> up
>
>>the material themselves.
>
>
>>Acts 1:12 (when they started the meeting) to the end of the chapter:
>
>
> .....
>
> and you stop at:
>
>
>>26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added
>
> to the
>
>>eleven apostles."
>
>
>>And then it goes into chapter 2, forward in time to the Pentecost.
>>There's nothing there about food or idols. Please, save your phony
>>"history" for your uneducated Calvary Chapel friends.
>
>
> Your are either ignorant, dishonest, or lazy.

Well, let's see...

> Verses 28-29:
>
> "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with
> anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from
> food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
> animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these
> things.

Learner, oh poor Learner. Lost in your talking points are you? Ever
read the Bible on your own? You just quoted Acts 15:28-29, not Acts
1:28-29 which doesn't exist! Or perhaps you were hoping no one would
notice? What's funny is that you quoted from a letter written by, "the
apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of
their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." What
you would probably call another mistake, was written by the apostles and
your favorite batch of holy men, elders. Not only that, it was the
letter they wrote that sent Paul off as their representative. Another
"bad mistake", I take it, eh?

Get ready, ladies and gentlemen. The next act... Snip and Run!

>>>countermand this decree in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8. So, I don't know
>
> how
>
>>>far I would trust this decision, since we know that at least one
>>>decision reached at this "sit down" was wrong.
>
>
>>You lie again. 1 Corinthians 8:7-8 countermanded nothing from the
>>Apostles, Lerner. These passages were directed at Jewish converts
>
> who
>
>>had problems in associating themselves with pagan idols. Note the
>>context, by looking at the complete set of passages...
>
>
> No, you are the liar, as Paul's words show:

They don't show what you claimed - that Paul countermanded anything from
the the Apostolic succession of Matthias in Acts 1.

> Verses 4-7:

Verses 4-7? I just posted verses 1 through 8, and you snipped the
entirety of the context. Because that's all you can hope to do to find
something, no matter how much Scripture you have to chop and throw into
the fire, to save a failed anti-Christian harangue.

Here's the entirety again:

1 Corinthians 8:1-8 --
1 "Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have
knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2And if anyone thinks
that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But
if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

4Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we
know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other
God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or
on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6yet for us there is
one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

7However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with
consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an
idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8But food does not
commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do
not eat are we the worse."

But according to your ignorant rant, when Paul says that for us
(Christians) "there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and
we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and
through whom we live", he is excluding the Apostles in the next
sentence, "there is not in everyone that knowledge"!

>>Note, once again, that you didn't post the passage to provide your
>>evidence and a context. But that would be the honest means to engage
>
> in
>
>>discourse, so we can't have that.
>
>
> At least I can see that it refers to food sacrificed to Pagan idols!

And that's all you can read! The entire chapter and meaning, let alone
ALL of Scripture, is beyond your erudition.

>>Speaking of pagan idols, this raises another interesting question.
>
> If
>
>>food from the pagan idols wasn't a problem for Paul, and he didn't
>
> care
>
>>if men remained uncut, would he have been perturbed by pagan art (as
>>you've designated any art of a Christian nature)?

>>This really is all good entertainment, Lerner. You wrote above, "You
>
>
>>have no ingredients of Apostolic succession at all. Show me one
>
> passage
>
>>in Scripture where anyone, who was appointed to a Church office, was
>>called a successor to any Apostle. No amount of Orthodox scripture
>>twisting can show this!"
>
>
> True.

Note how you snipped the passages. Sorry, Scripture is more durable
than your harangues. Oh, this is fun.

Acts 1:15-26 -- "And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was

surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord,
who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to
take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by
transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they cast

their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the
eleven apostles."

>>Those are your exact words. But look at what happened... I proved to
>
>
>>you that in fact here is one passage in Scripture where the Apostles
>
> got
>
>>together and appointed to a Church office a new successor to the
>
> Apostle
>
>>Judas. And it didn't require any Scriptural twisting. So what do
>
> you
>
>>do? Play the buffoon and pretend you just weren't handed another
>>virtual butt whupping.
>
>
> It doesn't really support Apostolic Succession at all, in fact, the
> choice that was made turned out to be wrong - and the choice was made

Wrong? Scripture is wrong? Well, if you say so! First you said the
Apostles made a bad decision (according to whatever logic, the Devil
knows), then the passages were a myth, now you're back to saying they're
wrong again. Which harangue is the correct harangue, Stevie?

> by casting lots! Jesus Christ chose someone to replace Judas and Paul

Where did you read this, Stevie? Note the lack of supporting evidence,
due to reading directly from the pamphlet points rather than Scripture.

> was it. This is what is supported in Scripture - G_d chooses, not men.

Gunderscored is your idol, not of Christ and Paul.

> When, according to the Bible, were others Apostles appointed following
> the relatively early deaths of a number of the original 12? Can't find
> that, can you Joey?

Rather, you mistake your delete button for the erase-Scripture button.
We can play this game as long as you think it has traction, "Learner."

Acts 1:15-26 -- "And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was

surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord,
who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to
take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by
transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they cast

their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the
eleven apostles."

> Also, when Mathias was added as a replacement, not a successor, for

Whoooah, but you've spent the last few days denying that it happened.
First it was a bad mistake, then a myth, then a mistake again, now he
was added as a replacement, not successor (a dubious, which I guess is
acceptable to you, unlike a "mistake" or "myth." But your replacement
vs. successor distinction fails the plain English test again, just like
your "monarch" hangup. Dictionary.com defines "successor" as: a thing
or person that immediately replaces something or someone. You're trying
to create dubious distinctions through word games.

Moreover, that's not what the passage says. It clearly reads
"apostleship", and no amount of snipping is going to save your factually
inaccurate case.

> Judas, it was to keep the number of Apostles at twelve. Your illogic

It says no such thing.

> indicates that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox should only have twelve
> Bishops?

Such a rule isn't there.

>>>New York City has 3 Greek Orthodox Bishops, an Orthodox Church in
>>>America Bishop, a Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop, an Antiochian Orthodox
>>>Bishop, a Serbian Orthodox Bishop, a Russian Orthodox Church
>
> Outside
>
>>>Russia Bishop, and 2 Greek Orthodox - Old Calendarists Bishops of
>>>various stripes.
>>
>>You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
>
>
> Yes I do. New York City has more than one Orthodox Bishop

No, you don't know what you're talking about. You hint that there are
conflicting churches and theologies, and that ain't so.

>> The Serbian bishop is Old Calendarist as well.
>
>
> Which has nothing to do with the fact that this city has more than one
> Bishop.
>
>
>>>You really should come to the big city some time Joe. You will see
>>>that your Church can't even follow its own soft rules.
>
>
>>What rules were broken, Lerner? I asked you repeatedly for a
>
> citation
>
>>of the canon laws, and you can't do it. I've an idea what you are
>>referring to, but I'm giving you the rope so I can watch you once
>
> again
>
>>hang yourself by expressing a profound ignorance in what you're
>
> reading.
>
>> So please cite your sources.
>
>
> 1st Ecumenical Council (Nicea), Canon VIII:
>
> "Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide
> for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be
> evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two
> bishops in the city."
>
> Learner

But this canon isn't the right one for your harangue, Stevie. Read the
canon in its entirety...

"CONCERNING those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over
to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod
decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the
clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess
in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic
and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with
persons who have been twice married, and with those who having
lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and
a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the
dogmas of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or
in cities, all of the ordained are found to be of these only, let them
remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But
if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic
Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the
bishop's dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called
Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to
the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title. Or, if

this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide for him a
place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be evidently
seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the
city."

This canon dealt with the return of heretics, the Cathari in particular,
to the Church. It describes what rank they should be brought in,
considering that the Church already had a canonical presence in that
region. This is a presence universally recognized by the other
jurisdictions. IOW, the Church had already established itself in that
area and its bishop was recognized by all, except for the heretics of
course. But this isn't the situation in the US. We're still an open
missionary land. There has been no universally recognized Church
presence that represents the US of A. Yes, many jurisdictions are
canonical, and ultimately an organization like SCOBA will work the
situation out, but the canon referenced above doesn't match the current
reality we live in.

[john j]

Off on a Toote are we

[AGGreen]

"john j" <JOH...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1136-423...@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...

> Off on a Toote are we
>

***Learner is a heretic, magnitude 1. He makes statements that have no basis
in fact, and cannot prove his statements when asked. He is nothing more than
a pathetic wimp who sold his soul for the love of a Jezebel.

[AGGreen]

***Learner proves again that he is uneducated. He deserves the pot-smoking,
flower child cult to which he belongs.

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

news:YAuZd.4556$gx3...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...

[Learner]

Joe Orthodox wrote:

<a lot of repetitious harangue and insults snipped>

> >>of Miss Cleo, what does your crystal ball say about the color of my
> >>bishop's underwear?

> > He is an Orthodox Bishop, is he not? As for the color of your
Bishop's
> > underwear - you tell me!

> He's an Orthodox bishop! Well, that proves your charges! How silly
of
> us not to see your clear reasoning. <rolling my eyes>

No, the facts prove the charge. The man pled guilty to fourth degree
criminal sexual misconduct.

> > The historical record shows that Bishops have been elected by
different
> > groups throughout history. Sometimes by the congregation,
sometimes
> > by the presbyters of each congregation, sometimes by other Bishops,
> > sometimes by the Emperor.

> But let's not run from the subject at hand, Learner. You claimed the

> "early" Christians who wrote/read the Didache elected their bishops
by
> congregation. It says no such thing in the Didache. Do I sense
another
> retreat into the nether regions of, "but that's not the point"?

It is obvious from the context of Didache 15:1-2

"Elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the
Lord...for they too render you the sacred service of prophets and
teachers. Do not, then, despise them; after all, they are your
dignitaries together with the prophets and teachers."

I know that you have a reading comprehension problem, but who is being
instructed to do these things? The congregation.

History is not your strong subject either. St. Hippolytus of Rome
wrote in his Canon of the Church of Alexandria (around 235 A.D.): "A
bishop should be elected by all the people". Cyprian, who was an
advocate for the episcopacy, wrote a detailed description of the
process of electing Bishops. According to Cyprian, the laity testified
as to the fitness of the candidate, exercised judgment throughout the
entire process, and the votes/assent of the laity was required to elect
a Bishop. Nearly all of the scholars [even Orthodox ones] agree that
this was what happened in the early Church, although they differ on the
issue of suffrage.

The election of Bishops was so common that Gregory of Nazianzus
complained that the entire election processes was corrupted but
influence peddling and even riots. Now, there are two schools of
thought which explain the changes made in the way that Bishops were
selected. Some scholars believe that limiting the participation of the
laity was a decision based on social and political conditions as well
as the with the problems created by a largely uneducated laity.

Emperor Justinian imposed laws which gave the power to select Bishops
to the clergy and the Emperor. This corrupt system evolved to the
point where the Emperor, or other prominent individuals, were granted a
unconditional right to select Bishops. In fact, Emperor Theodosius
personally appointed Nectarius to be the Bishop of Constantinople in
spite of the fact that he was only a catechumen and was not yet
baptized!

So, in spite of your endless and repetitious harangues, diversions, and
petty insults - once again history shows that your Church is not even
close to early Christianity. Orthodoxy is what history made it. And,
as demonstrated through your words and the way that you discuss things
with me [and others who disagree with your infantile knowledge of
theology and Church history] Orthodoxy ain't pretty.

Learner

[Stephen M. Adams]

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:

>If the Apostles believed in the concept of Apostolic succession, then
>why didn't they spell it out in Scripture?

Did they spell out the Trinity?

>> Or do you think that all "valid" doctrine must be fully developed
>> during Apostolic times?
>
>Your Church 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."

Correct. And bishops overseeing churches is found right in Titus.
You are simply quibbling with what "oversight" means - and there isn't
enough to quibble with to deny that Bishops are clearly seen in the
New Testament overseeing churches.

>Therefore, I would assume that an important issue, such as the idea of
>Apostolic succession, would/could be traced back to the Apostles.

Sure it can. It's right in the NT.

>> I'd appreciate an honest, direct answer. A third option that you
>> come up with is OK. Just be prepared to defend your point.
>
>Done.

Nope. The Scriptures support my contention (as demonstrated), as do
the writings of the Fathers.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

[Learner]

Stephen M. Adams wrote:

> >If the Apostles believed in the concept of Apostolic succession,
then
> >why didn't they spell it out in Scripture?

> Did they spell out the Trinity?

No they did not. The Trinity doctrine would have eliminated most early
Christians from the Church - who tended towards subordinationism.

Orthodoxy claims to be the faith delivered to the apostles, and the
belief of the early Church. Therefore - it either is or it is not. By
studying the history and development of doctrine over time, we can see
that Orthodoxy does not measure up to its claims - it is just that
simple.

> >> Or do you think that all "valid" doctrine must be fully
developed
> >> during Apostolic times?
> >
> >Your Church 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."

> Correct. And bishops overseeing churches is found right in Titus.
> You are simply quibbling with what "oversight" means - and there
isn't
> enough to quibble with to deny that Bishops are clearly seen in the
> New Testament overseeing churches.

I know what the term means. Naming someone as "overseer" for the
Church in no way implies that these people are "successors" to the
Apostles. You are attempting to read into the text something that is
not there. Orthodoxy tends to do this because it incorrectly assumes
itself to be the same as early Christianity - which it is not.

> >Therefore, I would assume that an important issue, such as the idea
of
> >Apostolic succession, would/could be traced back to the Apostles.

> Sure it can. It's right in the NT.

Where does the NT say that Bishops are successors to the Apostles?
Where does the Didache, or any first century source, make this claim?

> >> I'd appreciate an honest, direct answer. A third option that you
> >> come up with is OK. Just be prepared to defend your point.

> >Done.

> Nope. The Scriptures support my contention (as demonstrated), as do
> the writings of the Fathers.

No one has demonstated that the Scriptures teach that modern Bishops
are successors to the Apostles. The Bible does not teach this nor do
the early Fathers of the Church. What you, and many Orthodox do, is to
fast-forward history to the stage where Christianity began to
standardize doctrine through authoritarianism. The idea of a Bishop
being a successor to an Apostle has no support from the NT and earliest
Christianity. Christians in the first century would have found such a
notion absurd.

The evolution of the office of Bishop can be traced this way: Ignatius
saw the Bishop as a "center" of Christian unity. Irenaeus saw the
Bishop as a "depositary" of the truth of the Apostle. Cyprian saw the
Bishop as the representative of Christ in all things spiritual.

Learner

[chucker]

Learner wrote:
> Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
> > >If the Apostles believed in the concept of Apostolic succession,
> then
> > >why didn't they spell it out in Scripture?
>
> > Did they spell out the Trinity?
>
> No they did not. The Trinity doctrine would have eliminated most
early
> Christians from the Church - who tended towards subordinationism.
>
> Orthodoxy claims to be the faith delivered to the apostles, and the
> belief of the early Church. Therefore - it either is or it is not. By
> studying the history and development of doctrine over time, we can
see
> that Orthodoxy does not measure up to its claims - it is just that
> simple.

We happen to disagree with you. We believe that Orthodoxy does measure
up to its claims, as evidenced by the Church's history and consistent
teachings. It's really as simple as that. :)

We also believe that you are a disgruntled troll who cannot find peace
in your new-found belief system and therefore believe that by trying to
destroy our faith it will somehow bolster your own. You're quite
mistaken (as you've demonstrated consistently for months now). No one
here is buying your lame arguments. You're persuading no one (and if
truth be known, I think deep down that you realize this). In short,
you're a rather sad individual who desperately needs to find inner
peace.

[AGGreen]

***More lame-brained arguments to fall on deaf ears!! Sad, truly sad.

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110901341....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
> > > Verses 28-29:
>
> > > "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with
> > > anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from
> > > food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
> > > animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these
> > > things.
> >
> > Learner, oh poor Learner. Lost in your talking points are you? Ever
>
> > read the Bible on your own? You just quoted Acts 15:28-29, not Acts
> > 1:28-29 which doesn't exist!
>

> No kidding.

>
> > Get ready, ladies and gentlemen. The next act... Snip and Run!
>
> > >>>countermand this decree in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8. So, I don't know
>

> > They don't show what you claimed - that Paul countermanded anything
> from
> > the the Apostolic succession of Matthias in Acts 1.
>

> Well duh! Paul countermanded a decision made by those who also chose
> Mathhias. It blows the validity of Church Councils out of the water.

>
> > But according to your ignorant rant, when Paul says that for us
> > (Christians) "there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
> and
> > we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,
> and
> > through whom we live", he is excluding the Apostles in the next
> > sentence, "there is not in everyone that knowledge"!
>

> Yes, he is excluding them. Paul had a number of disagreements with the
> Apostles, even with Peter and Barnabas.

>
> > > At least I can see that it refers to food sacrificed to Pagan
> idols!
>
> > And that's all you can read! The entire chapter and meaning, let
> alone
> > ALL of Scripture, is beyond your erudition.
>

> Do you know what erudition means?

>
> > > It doesn't really support Apostolic Succession at all, in fact, the
> > > choice that was made turned out to be wrong - and the choice was
> made
>
> > Wrong? Scripture is wrong? Well, if you say so! First you said the
>
> > Apostles made a bad decision (according to whatever logic, the Devil
> > knows), then the passages were a myth, now you're back to saying
> they're
> > wrong again. Which harangue is the correct harangue, Stevie?
>

> The Apostles were wrong, Paul was G-d's choice.

>
> > > When, according to the Bible, were others Apostles appointed
> following
> > > the relatively early deaths of a number of the original 12? Can't
> find
> > > that, can you Joey?
>
> > Rather, you mistake your delete button for the erase-Scripture
> button.
> > We can play this game as long as you think it has traction,
> "Learner."
>
> > Acts 1:15-26 -- "And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who
> was
> > surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O
> Lord,
> > who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen
> to
> > take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by
> > transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they cast
>
> > their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with
> the
> > eleven apostles."
>

> As usual, you didn't answer the question. According to the Bible, were

> others Apostles appointed following the relatively early deaths of a

> number of the original 12? Yes or no.

> Uhhh no. This Council decided that the clergy who were involved in the
> Novatian schism could return to the Church and retain their
> ordinations. The problem was that this could also produce a situation
> where there was an Orthodox Bishop and an ex-Novatian Bishop in the
> same diocese. Therefore, there cannot be two, or more in the case of
> New York, Bishops ruling over the same place.

>
> > IOW, the Church had already established itself in that
> > area and its bishop was recognized by all, except for the heretics of
>
> > course.
>

> It was not that simple. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon gave the
> Patriarch of Constantinople power over the Metropolitans of Thrace,
> Pontus, and Asia. St. Leo refused to accept this Canon as valid
> because he believed it violated the canonical principles established at
> the first 3 Councils. Leo was right.

>
> > But this isn't the situation in the US. We're still an open
> > missionary land. There has been no universally recognized Church
> > presence that represents the US of A. Yes, many jurisdictions are
> > canonical, and ultimately an organization like SCOBA will work the
> > situation out, but the canon referenced above doesn't match the
> current
> > reality we live in.
>

> I doubt that SCOBA will work out anything any time soon.
>
> Learner
>

[AGGreen]

***Your suppositions are more far out than a Ron Hubbard science fiction
novel!

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1110902935....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
> <a lot of repetitious harangue and insults snipped>

No, this is what you snipped:

"The authority given them by Christ and the Apostles to decide what
rules are necessary for discipline. Perhaps in the west during the late
middle ages, there were economic concerns with mandating celibacy for
all clergy. Perhaps, and most likely, serving the Lord the fullest
requires the sacrifice of not having a wife and children. After all,
that's what Paul teaches. But please, it's obvious you've got your OC
and RCC talking points mixed up again. Whatever the case, you've not
salvaged your failed harangue that Paul mandated marriage for bishops."

The only thing there are the facts. Not a single insult directed at
you. Unless, of course, we accept that the truth is an insult to your ego.

>>>>of Miss Cleo, what does your crystal ball say about the color of my
>>>>bishop's underwear?
>
>
>>>He is an Orthodox Bishop, is he not? As for the color of your
>
> Bishop's
>
>>>underwear - you tell me!
>
>
>>He's an Orthodox bishop! Well, that proves your charges! How silly
>
> of
>
>>us not to see your clear reasoning. <rolling my eyes>
>
>
> No, the facts prove the charge. The man pled guilty to fourth degree
> criminal sexual misconduct.

No, your facts are wrong, and you snipped your earlier statement in the
vain hope you could find a harangue that sticked. Here are your
original words:

"And your Bishop played with a woman's breast, while drunk, in a Casino!"

I asked you to provide the name of my bishop, since you've acquired such
awesome psychic powers. But we know the truth is that you're only
attempting to attack faceless individuals in another hate-filled rant.

>>>The historical record shows that Bishops have been elected by
>
> different
>
>>>groups throughout history. Sometimes by the congregation,
>
> sometimes
>
>>>by the presbyters of each congregation, sometimes by other Bishops,
>>>sometimes by the Emperor.
>
>
>>But let's not run from the subject at hand, Learner. You claimed the
>
>
>>"early" Christians who wrote/read the Didache elected their bishops
>
> by
>
>>congregation. It says no such thing in the Didache. Do I sense
>
> another
>
>>retreat into the nether regions of, "but that's not the point"?
>
>
> It is obvious from the context of Didache 15:1-2
>
> "Elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the
> Lord...for they too render you the sacred service of prophets and
> teachers. Do not, then, despise them; after all, they are your
> dignitaries together with the prophets and teachers."

It doesn't say who chose them, "Learner."

> I know that you have a reading comprehension problem, but who is being
> instructed to do these things? The congregation.

It says no such thing, "Learner."

Secondly, you've opted to insert the word "elect", which is what you've
taken from a polemical evangelical site. Roberts-Donaldson, J.B.
Lightfoot, Kirsopp Lake, and Ivan Lewis translated it appropriately -
"appoint." Herbert Armstrong's translation says "hand pick." But words
are insignificant to you, and thusly you swap, cut, and misquote as
needed to create the history you want. You try to find a hair's
difference between equivalent words, such as episkopos and bishop (ore
even bishop and bishop!), but then routinely conflate two very different
words, in this case "appoint" and "elect." The word "appoint" denotes
an act from someone of authority, i.e. a body of bishops, and undermines
your harangue.

> History is not your strong subject either. St. Hippolytus of Rome
> wrote in his Canon of the Church of Alexandria (around 235 A.D.): "A
> bishop should be elected by all the people". Cyprian, who was an

That's a lie. He wrote:

"He who is ordained as a bishop, being chosen by all the people, must be
irreproachable. When his name is announced and approved, the people
will gather on the Lord's day with the council of elders and the bishops
who are present. With the assent of all, the bishops will place their
hands upon him, with the council of elders standing by, quietly.
Everyone will keep silent, praying in their hearts for the descent of
the Spirit."

This is what we do in the OC, Stevie. The laity approve or disapprove
of the bishops that've been appointed.

By the way, this work is called "The Apostolic Succession." Why did you
not mention this, Stevie? Is the book title too inconvenient?

> advocate for the episcopacy, wrote a detailed description of the
> process of electing Bishops. According to Cyprian, the laity testified
> as to the fitness of the candidate, exercised judgment throughout the
> entire process, and the votes/assent of the laity was required to elect
> a Bishop. Nearly all of the scholars [even Orthodox ones] agree that
> this was what happened in the early Church, although they differ on the
> issue of suffrage.

But this is what we do today, Stevie. The laity approves/disapproves of
the appointment of the bishop. You've unwittingly (because you don't
know Orthodoxy) just proven that the OC practices the same methods as
the early OC. You've not identified any differences.

> The election of Bishops was so common that Gregory of Nazianzus

Appointment of bishops was common, with the approval/disapproval of the
laity...

> complained that the entire election processes was corrupted but
> influence peddling and even riots. Now, there are two schools of
> thought which explain the changes made in the way that Bishops were
> selected. Some scholars believe that limiting the participation of the
> laity was a decision based on social and political conditions as well
> as the with the problems created by a largely uneducated laity.

Nothing you've written here contradicts OC practice, but I notice again
that you ramble off a stream of consciousness without providing any sources.

> Emperor Justinian imposed laws which gave the power to select Bishops

But you just said the other day that the OC tells the Emperor what to
do. Which harangue is the real harangue?

> to the clergy and the Emperor. This corrupt system evolved to the
> point where the Emperor, or other prominent individuals, were granted a
> unconditional right to select Bishops. In fact, Emperor Theodosius

Corrupt system evolved by whom? A government, as you admit it was the
government acting here, not the Church. The Church didn't grant anyone
outside of itself to do take over its right to appoint its own bishops.
You again, hypocritically, expect the OC to exist in a vacuum and not
be subject to the bad intentions of governments with armies and weapons.
But despite this... the Church time and again maintained the Faith
given the Apostles, and cleansed itself of those who tried to introduce
heresy.

> personally appointed Nectarius to be the Bishop of Constantinople in
> spite of the fact that he was only a catechumen and was not yet
> baptized!

But he was baptised immediately after the appointment, and before being
confirmed to the office. Furthermore, he presided over the Second
Ecumenical Council, which confirmed the Nicene Creed. A few months ago
you wrote that denying that Creed is a heresy... So what's your problem
with this bishop? Whoooops! Forgot. You've since left Christianity.

> So, in spite of your endless and repetitious harangues, diversions, and
> petty insults - once again history shows that your Church is not even

You're stealing my lines again, O' Boy of No Thoughts of His Own.

> close to early Christianity. Orthodoxy is what history made it. And,
> as demonstrated through your words and the way that you discuss things
> with me [and others who disagree with your infantile knowledge of
> theology and Church history] Orthodoxy ain't pretty.
>
> Learner

Wishful thinking. Your actions betray your words, by continuously
stealing my lines and phrases.

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:

> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>
>>>Verses 28-29:
>
>
>>>"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with
>>>anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from
>>>food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
>>>animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these
>>>things.
>>
>>Learner, oh poor Learner. Lost in your talking points are you? Ever
>
>
>>read the Bible on your own? You just quoted Acts 15:28-29, not Acts
>>1:28-29 which doesn't exist!
>
>

> No kidding.

No kidding, you just snipped and ran as I said you would do next!

>>Get ready, ladies and gentlemen. The next act... Snip and Run!

>>>>>countermand this decree in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8. So, I don't know
>
>

>>They don't show what you claimed - that Paul countermanded anything
>
> from
>
>>the the Apostolic succession of Matthias in Acts 1.
>
>

> Well duh! Paul countermanded a decision made by those who also chose

Well duh! I've course the rapid 180 doesn't shake the egg from your face.

> Mathhias. It blows the validity of Church Councils out of the water.

No, it didn't. You got your facts, your Scripture wrong. Whoooops!
Forgot. It's not your Scripture anymore, since you've left Christianity.

>>But according to your ignorant rant, when Paul says that for us
>>(Christians) "there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
>
> and
>
>>we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,
>
> and
>
>>through whom we live", he is excluding the Apostles in the next
>>sentence, "there is not in everyone that knowledge"!
>
>

> Yes, he is excluding them. Paul had a number of disagreements with the
> Apostles, even with Peter and Barnabas.

And you once more prove you're an anti-Christian, reading-impaired
individual for believing Paul was teaching in this passage that the
Apostles, who knew Christ personally, didn't believe that "there is one

God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."

>>>At least I can see that it refers to food sacrificed to Pagan
>
> idols!
>
>
>>And that's all you can read! The entire chapter and meaning, let
>
> alone
>
>>ALL of Scripture, is beyond your erudition.
>
>

> Do you know what erudition means?
>
>

>>>It doesn't really support Apostolic Succession at all, in fact, the
>>>choice that was made turned out to be wrong - and the choice was
>
> made
>
>
>>Wrong? Scripture is wrong? Well, if you say so! First you said the
>
>
>>Apostles made a bad decision (according to whatever logic, the Devil
>>knows), then the passages were a myth, now you're back to saying
>
> they're
>
>>wrong again. Which harangue is the correct harangue, Stevie?
>
>

> The Apostles were wrong, Paul was G-d's choice.

There is no Gundercored in Paul's letters, Stevie. You can deny Paul,
the Apostles, and Scripture all you want. Let's just drop the pretenses
that you care a whit about the Bible.

>>> When, according to the Bible, were others Apostles appointed
>
> following
>
>>>the relatively early deaths of a number of the original 12? Can't
>
> find
>
>>>that, can you Joey?
>
>
>>Rather, you mistake your delete button for the erase-Scripture
>
> button.
>
>>We can play this game as long as you think it has traction,
>
> "Learner."
>
>
>>Acts 1:15-26 -- "And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who
>
> was
>
>>surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, 'You, O
>
> Lord,
>
>>who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen
>
> to
>
>>take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by
>>transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they cast
>
>
>>their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with
>
> the
>
>>eleven apostles."
>
>

> As usual, you didn't answer the question. According to the Bible, were

> others Apostles appointed following the relatively early deaths of a

> number of the original 12? Yes or no.

> Uhhh no. This Council decided that the clergy who were involved in the
> Novatian schism could return to the Church and retain their
> ordinations. The problem was that this could also produce a situation
> where there was an Orthodox Bishop and an ex-Novatian Bishop in the
> same diocese. Therefore, there cannot be two, or more in the case of
> New York, Bishops ruling over the same place.

Just admit you didn't read it, Stevie. This canon was dealing with a
region that had a single, recognized, agreed-upon bishop by all the
jurisdictions. It's a process that takes hundreds of years for a
country to gain that status. Once you're able to read something all the
way through, comprehend simple logic, and understand what's written
there, come back and we can discuss. It's agreed that you don't
understand Orthodoxy, its canons, the purpose of the canons, and how the
Church treats missionary territory versus an established territory, but
don't expect others to spend a lot of time holding your hand in getting
over these hurdles.

>>IOW, the Church had already established itself in that
>>area and its bishop was recognized by all, except for the heretics of
>
>
>>course.
>
>

> It was not that simple. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon gave the

Whoooah, cowboy. You write, "it was not that simple," and in true
Learner style you change the subject to something completely unrelated.
Canon 28 in the Chalcedonian Council had nothing to do with multiple
bishops in one city.

>>But this isn't the situation in the US. We're still an open
>>missionary land. There has been no universally recognized Church
>>presence that represents the US of A. Yes, many jurisdictions are
>>canonical, and ultimately an organization like SCOBA will work the
>>situation out, but the canon referenced above doesn't match the
>
> current
>
>>reality we live in.
>
>

> I doubt that SCOBA will work out anything any time soon.
>
> Learner

True. But the Church is extremely patient. It's a process that takes
hundreds of years. The US is still a baby of a nation.

[Joe Orthodox]

Learner wrote:
> Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
>
>>>If the Apostles believed in the concept of Apostolic succession,
>
> then
>
>>>why didn't they spell it out in Scripture?
>
>
>>Did they spell out the Trinity?
>
>
> No they did not. The Trinity doctrine would have eliminated most early
> Christians from the Church - who tended towards subordinationism.

That's a lie. You read a new big word from the concordance notes to
Justin Martyr, where it mentioned he used the language of
subordinationist Greek philosophy in his polemics against the pagans,
and you thusly conclude, erroneously, that Justin Martyr was a
full-fledged subordinationist and, thusly, all Christians were the same.
You'll have to think better than that, "Learner."

> Orthodoxy claims to be the faith delivered to the apostles, and the
> belief of the early Church. Therefore - it either is or it is not. By

It is, and after over two and a half years you've not come up with a
single argument otherwise.

> studying the history and development of doctrine over time, we can see
> that Orthodoxy does not measure up to its claims - it is just that
> simple.

It's simple for a dorm room kid, still living off the old man's hard
work, to "see", who can't decide which religion to join from month to month.

>>>> Or do you think that all "valid" doctrine must be fully
>
> developed
>
>>>> during Apostolic times?
>>>
>>>Your Church 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."
>
>
>>Correct. And bishops overseeing churches is found right in Titus.
>>You are simply quibbling with what "oversight" means - and there
>
> isn't
>
>>enough to quibble with to deny that Bishops are clearly seen in the
>>New Testament overseeing churches.
>
>
> I know what the term means. Naming someone as "overseer" for the
> Church in no way implies that these people are "successors" to the

Scripture says otherwise, but that's really not your concern since you
reject most of it and aren't Christian.

> Apostles. You are attempting to read into the text something that is
> not there. Orthodoxy tends to do this because it incorrectly assumes

No. We read it, you say it's not there, we then post the exact words,
you snip it, then have the gall to dance away, "But that's not the issue
at hand."

> itself to be the same as early Christianity - which it is not.

So easy for a dorm room kid to claim without offering anything to prove
his case other than the word of "Learner", net troll.

>>>Therefore, I would assume that an important issue, such as the idea
>
> of
>
>>>Apostolic succession, would/could be traced back to the Apostles.
>
>
>>Sure it can. It's right in the NT.
>
>
> Where does the NT say that Bishops are successors to the Apostles?

Let's just take the words of Paul, who you'd agree is an Apostle.

Acts 20:28 -
"Keep watch over yourselves and ALL the flock of which THE HOLY SPIRIT
HAS MADE you bishops. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought
with his own blood."

Now, tell us what the bishops were doing that was different than the
Apostles. Paul is clearly handing off to these bishops authority to be
shepherds over the Body of Christ. The question, that you've dodged,
still goes back to what authority did bishops possess in the first
century that is noticeably different from today. You've spent several
days plus two years and you're still unable to come up with an answer.
I'm betting that before the week ends you'll have diverted this thread
into the realm of icons (again).

> Where does the Didache, or any first century source, make this claim?

Please, argumentum ex silentio again? You're not Christian, what do you
care?

>>>>I'd appreciate an honest, direct answer. A third option that you
>>>>come up with is OK. Just be prepared to defend your point.
>
>
>>>Done.
>
>
>>Nope. The Scriptures support my contention (as demonstrated), as do
>>the writings of the Fathers.
>
>
> No one has demonstated that the Scriptures teach that modern Bishops
> are successors to the Apostles. The Bible does not teach this nor do

That's a lie.

> the early Fathers of the Church. What you, and many Orthodox do, is to
> fast-forward history to the stage where Christianity began to
> standardize doctrine through authoritarianism. The idea of a Bishop

That's a lie.

> being a successor to an Apostle has no support from the NT and earliest
> Christianity. Christians in the first century would have found such a
> notion absurd.

That's a lie.

> The evolution of the office of Bishop can be traced this way: Ignatius
> saw the Bishop as a "center" of Christian unity. Irenaeus saw the

Your source?

> Bishop as a "depositary" of the truth of the Apostle. Cyprian saw the

Your source?

> Bishop as the representative of Christ in all things spiritual.

Your source? But it doesn't matter. Explain how the word
"representative" is an evolution of the word "depository", and how that
word is an evolution of the word "center." It's clear to any sober mind
that those words are descriptive of the same thing. Christ is a door,
the true vine, the Lamb, the Truth, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the
Good Shepherd, and the Way and yet those terms are not evolutions upon
the other.

You're a joke, Stevie.

[Stephen M. Adams]

"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>

>> Did they spell out the Trinity?
>No they did not. The Trinity doctrine would have eliminated most early
>Christians from the Church - who tended towards subordinationism.

Well, then, by your logic, you cannot be a Trinitarian. Are you saying
that you reject this core Christian belief?

>Orthodoxy claims to be the faith delivered to the apostles, and the
>belief of the early Church. Therefore - it either is or it is not. By
>studying the history and development of doctrine over time, we can see
>that Orthodoxy does not measure up to its claims - it is just that
>simple.

Oh, but it does. *Clarification* of doctrine is NOT change - but
clarification.

<snip>

We'll addresss a single point, which destroys your point of view:

>The evolution of the office of Bishop can be traced this way: Ignatius
>saw the Bishop as a "center" of Christian unity. Irenaeus saw the
>Bishop as a "depositary" of the truth of the Apostle. Cyprian saw the
>Bishop as the representative of Christ in all things spiritual.

From Acts:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be
desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let
another take. [Acts 1:20, KJV]

Now, follow along:

For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed,
not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of
sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout,
self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance
with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound
doctrine and to refute those who contradict. [ Titus 1:7-9, NASB]

You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many
witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach
others also. [ 2 Tim 2:1-2, NASB ]

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of
overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then,
must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent,
respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or
pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children
under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage
his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall
into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good
reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall
into reproach and the snare of the devil. [ 1 Tim 1:3-7, NASB ]

The Scriptures are quite clear - the Overseer is the caretaker of the
Church, in the place of the Apostles.

All you can do is quibble over what it meant to be overseer/caretaker,
you can't refute the notion that Bishops existed, and were in charge
of local churches, since it's RIGHT THERE in the Scriptures.

[AGGreen]

***Learner, who knows not scripture, is stomped on again!! Heretics sure are
entertaining.

"Stephen M. Adams" <ada...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:d194u...@news1.newsguy.com...

[AGGreen]

***Learner exposed again! Learner is entertaining. His heresies know no
bounds.

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

news:9WOZd.4753$hu3....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

[Joe Orthodox]

Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> "Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>Did they spell out the Trinity?
>>
>>No they did not. The Trinity doctrine would have eliminated most early
>>Christians from the Church - who tended towards subordinationism.
>
>
> Well, then, by your logic, you cannot be a Trinitarian. Are you saying
> that you reject this core Christian belief?

He isn't Christain anymore, due to this reason and his repeated attacks
on the Gospels, the Virgin Birth, Christ's divinity, and most of the
rest of the NT. His recent adoption of writing "G_d" indicates a new
fancy with one of those Messianic groups (invented a few decades ago).
He won't admit it because that would be the sincere thing to do in an
honest discourse. Note how his former evangelical buddies aren't
helping him out anymore in the lines of attack he's been adopting
recently. His problem has grown well beyond Orthodoxy and into
Christianity in general.