Who loves the truth???? Prove it.....
spar...@holmes.ipfw.indiana.edu
Hello all,
Many people argue about theology, but do they really love the truth? Do
they love it enough to do something about our lack of biblical truth
in the libraries?
I want to tell you about a project I undertook this spring.
I mailed a letter to the head librarian at the local library. Earlier,
I had noticed that the Christian section in the library was composed
mostly of old or unsound books. I asked the head librarian to purchase
some newer volumes that refjected basic concepts of Christianity.
Unfortunately, I made my list a little too long, and he chose some of
the lesser volumes on my list, but the letter had an effect. I'd like to
ask the Christians on this list to look at their library's collection and
determine whether it needs some new additions. In many cases, the cults
provide their materials to the library, and Christianity is competing with
their newer, nicer books. One of the reasons for the growth in cult
membership is their ability to aggressively market their product.
I suggest the following volumes:
Know the Truth, Bruce Milne
Does It Matter That I'm Saved: What the Bible Teaches about Salvation,
Millard Ericson
Know What You Believe, Paul Little
Know Why You Believe, Paul Little
Knowing God, J.I. Packer
Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, R.C. Sproul
Essential Christianity, Walter Martin
Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Enns
I would like to ask you to draft such a letter requesting your library
to purchase some good books like these. These points may help you to
draft such a letter:
* Find out who's in charge, and address the letter to that person.
It's better than a generic letter to the library.
* Make sure the letter is well written. A poorly written letter
may reflect negatively on the decision maker.
* Don't take a us-them mentality. Some Christians resent or imply
negative characteristics to institutions like libraries. Many
decisionmakers in these institutions are Christian, or are
responsive to public requests. Write the letter in a meek,
respectful attitude.
* Don't request selections like books that directly confront
cults, or anything that may be controversial. Focus on
basic Christian doctrine. Books that directly confront have
their place, but if the selection generates heat for the library,
then they may think twice about your requests in the future.
* Make sure you specify titles. What some consider Christian is
liberal. If you say, purchase more Christian books, that may
be interpreted liberally, and the selections may have little
potential to stimulate the reader. If you don't feel qualified
to specify titles, use my list above or consult Christian
Research Institute(888-7000-CRI). Ask them for their resource
listing. CRI is dedicated to putting good Christian resources
into the hands of Christians so that they can proclaim the
Gospel.
* Donate some good new books or videos yourself if you can afford
it. Be sure to ask the library to refund your donations if
they cannot use them. Maybe you can make this a church project
if you attend a healthy, well balanced church. You can put a
label on the donation that points the seeker to your church.
* Have patience. It took me about six months to get a response.
* Pray about your contacts. Prayer is firing the winning shot.
* If you don't have a good, close relationship with God, read these
books yourself. Your problem could be that you're not well
grounded in the truth. Start with 'Knowing God' by J.I. Packer.
It is recommended by many notable figures. Many in the Christian
churches attend services, but don't have a personal, saving
relationship with God.
I feel this project could place good books in the hands of seekers which
may otherwise be attracted to books on the New Age or the cults due
to their availability and attractiveness.
Please pass this email on to any Christian mailing list that you may take
notice of. Please let me know if you decide to take up this project. I
don't review these newsgroups often, so please post me privately.
Thanks.
Robert Sparkman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sparkman
School email SPAR...@HOLMES.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Hampton
In alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox spar...@holmes.ipfw.indiana.edu wrote:
: Many people argue about theology, but do they really love the truth? Do
: they love it enough to do something about our lack of biblical truth
: in the libraries?
(Second copy of this article in two days deleted)
Why are you posting this in newsgroups which have nothing to do with
what you're talking about? I participate in both
alt.religion.christian.boston-church and
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox. Your article was off-topic
in both -- none of the material you mentioned had anything to do with
either the Boston/International Church of Christ or with Eastern Orthodox
Christianity.
Please don't send out chain-letter posts like this. They get real old
real fast, however good your intentions may be.
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>
=======================================================================
Webmaster, REVEAL <http://www.reveal.org>
Webmaster, Orthodox Christian <http://www.best.com/~ariel/orthodox/>
Resources on the Internet
Bryan J. Maloney
Your list of books is excessively Protestant, furthermore, it contains no
Orthodox writings at all.
--
To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
For all you automated email spammers, here's the addresses of the board of the FCC:
Chmn. Reed Hunt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Comm. James Quello: jQu...@fcc.gov
Comm. Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Comm. Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Catherine Hampton
In article <01bcc94d$90cc3ca0$1612...@pathcom.com.pathcom.com>, Sam
Cohen says...
# What in hell does Orthodox mean? I don't think those people are
# Christians!
Sam -- someone crossposted this inappropriate post between the
following newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.boston-church
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
alt.religion.christian.episcopal
alt.religion.christian.jesus-connect
This was a =very= strange choice, a choice possible mostly because the
individual who posted the oroginal off-topic posting just crossposted
it to a selection of groups with "christian" in their names. (He
responded privately to my complaint, although he obviously doesn't
understand much about the Usenet and doesn't realize that his
crossposting might well cause a flamewar.)
As things stand, the first group is about a controversial Evangelical
Protestant church called the "International Church of Christ".
Probably 2/3 of the participants in the newsgroup are former members
who believe this church is a religious cult. The former members now
are of a whole range of religious beliefs. I happen to be an Orthodox
Christian. Others are Catholic, Protestant, agnostic and Pagan.
A bunch of Christian books which are not by anyone in the ICC, not
about the ICC, and not about religious cults are off topic in ARCBC.
Bryan Maloney was objecting to the post in question because it is off-
topic in the second group, alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox. I
agree with him -- he's right. A bunch of Protestant books that don't
even mention Eastern Orthodox Christianity, don't cover their subjects
from an Orthodox perspective, etc. simply are not on-topic in a Usenet
group about Orthodox Christianity.
If you don't believe that we're Christian, that's ok. To put it quite
bluntly, we didn't ask you. Some idiot posted inappropriately to a
bunch of newsgroups.
So PLEASE check your Newsgroup: lines before you flame people for
complaining about off-topic posts. :/ You may be the one who is out
of line.
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
(Please use the address in my signature to send email. The address
in my From: header is a spam trap.)
Sam Cohen
What in hell does Orthodox mean? I don't think those people are
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@edu.cornell> wrote in article
<bjm10-24099...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>...
Alfred G. Green, Jr.
Sam Cohen wrote:
>
> What in hell does Orthodox mean? I don't think those people are
> Christians!
Orthodox is from two Greek words Ortho and Doxia which mean "Right
Thinking". The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Christ at
Pentecost in 33 A.D. All other Christian groups, Roman Catholics and the
branches of the Lutheran Protestant and Anglican reformations are
derived from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...embodied and
fully revealed in Orthodoxy. You, sir, need to read a little church
history before shoting off your mouth.
Mr. Cohen...are you a Jew? If so, it might explain why you have no
knowledge at all of church history.
Al
--
________________________________
NOTE: To reply, remove one of the a's at the beginning of the e-mail
return address. The address has be altered to thwart spammers.
________________________________
| "This is the Faith of the Apostles,
||||| this is the Faith of the Fathers,
| this is the Faith of the Orthodox,
||||||||||| this is the Faith which has
| established the Universe!"
\ |
\| (The statement of the 7th Ecumenical
|\ Council, affirming the truths of the
| \ Holy Orthodox Faith, 787 A.D.)
R.L. Measures
In article <342A81...@bigfoot.com>, "Alfred G. Green, Jr."
<aagg...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Sam Cohen wrote:
> >
> > What in hell does Orthodox mean? I don't think those people are
> > Christians!
>
> Orthodox is from two Greek words Ortho and Doxia which mean "Right
> Thinking". The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Christ at
> Pentecost in 33 A.D. All other Christian groups, Roman Catholics and the
> branches of the Lutheran Protestant and Anglican reformations are
> derived from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...embodied and
> fully revealed in Orthodoxy. You, sir, need to read a little church
> history before shoting off your mouth.
>
> Mr. Cohen...are you a Jew? If so, it might explain why you have no
> knowledge at all of church history.
.......................
- If 'Orthodox' means 'right thinking', then the word seems to imply that
other religions are not thinking right. Thus, it could be said that The
Movement/Boston Movement/International Churches of Christ is essentially
claiming to be Orthodox.
--
- Rich - 805-386-3734, ag6k
Alfred G. Green, Jr.
R.L. Measures wrote:
>
> In article <342A81...@bigfoot.com>, "Alfred G. Green, Jr."
> <aagg...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > Sam Cohen wrote:
> > >
> > > What in hell does Orthodox mean? I don't think those people are
> > > Christians!
> >
> > Orthodox is from two Greek words Ortho and Doxia which mean "Right
> > Thinking". The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Christ at
> > Pentecost in 33 A.D. All other Christian groups, Roman Catholics and the
> > branches of the Lutheran Protestant and Anglican reformations are
> > derived from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...embodied and
> > fully revealed in Orthodoxy. You, sir, need to read a little church
> > history before shoting off your mouth.
> >
> > Mr. Cohen...are you a Jew? If so, it might explain why you have no
> > knowledge at all of church history.
> .......................
> - If 'Orthodox' means 'right thinking', then the word seems to imply that
> other religions are not thinking right.
This is absolutely correct. All other so-called Christian denominations
(some 32,000 worldwide according to a U.N. study) deviate a little to
one heck of a whole lot from the *right thinking* teachings of Christ's
Holy Orthodox Church.
Thus, it could be said that The
> Movement/Boston Movement/International Churches of Christ is essentially
> claiming to be Orthodox.
I suspect it's "orthodox" with a small "o". Roman Catholics use the
word. too, with a small "o" to back up their false claims to being the
only purveyor of The Truth. But we all know that's hogwash.
Al
John Simmons
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Alfred G. Green, Jr. wrote:
> R.L. Measures wrote:
> >
> > In article <342A81...@bigfoot.com>, "Alfred G. Green, Jr."
> > <aagg...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sam Cohen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What in hell does Orthodox mean? I don't think those people are
> > > > Christians!
> > >
> > > Orthodox is from two Greek words Ortho and Doxia which mean "Right
> > > Thinking". The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Christ at
> > > Pentecost in 33 A.D. All other Christian groups, Roman Catholics and the
> > > branches of the Lutheran Protestant and Anglican reformations are
> > > derived from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...embodied and
> > > fully revealed in Orthodoxy. You, sir, need to read a little church
> > > history before shoting off your mouth.
> > >
> > .......................
> > - If 'Orthodox' means 'right thinking', then the word seems to imply that
> > other religions are not thinking right.
>
> This is absolutely correct. All other so-called Christian denominations
> (some 32,000 worldwide according to a U.N. study) deviate a little to
> one heck of a whole lot from the *right thinking* teachings of Christ's
> Holy Orthodox Church.
A small technical elaboration - "Doxa" actually means "worship" (it's
where we get the word "doxology"); so Orthodox more traditionally means
"right worship" or "right doctrine". This may seem trivial, but much of
what we receive is not based on purely "thinking right" - especially when
we receive a mystery which rather transcends our ability to think about
it in some areas.
> Thus, it could be said that The
> > Movement/Boston Movement/International Churches of Christ is essentially
> > claiming to be Orthodox.
>
> I suspect it's "orthodox" with a small "o". Roman Catholics use the
> word. too, with a small "o" to back up their false claims to being the
> only purveyor of The Truth. But we all know that's hogwash.
>
> Al
Evangelicals also speak of "Orthodox" doctrine (contrasted with
revisionism). As for using the "capital O", meaning the Orthodox Church,
it seems a bit of a stretch for a fairly new protestant (or
protestant-like) "church" to do this without negating history (or the need
for historical continutiy).
Cal Eustaquio
> I suspect it's "orthodox" with a small "o". Roman Catholics use the
> word. too, with a small "o" to back up their false claims to being the
> only purveyor of The Truth. But we all know that's hogwash.
Hello to Al and all who read this:
We Catholics use the venacular "orthodox" (with a small "o") to indicate
our own language within the Catholic church. It doesn't have anything to
do with anything dealing with the other Orthodox churches. Currently,
there is an unspoken battle going on in the Catholic church which many of
us on the conservative side use the term "orthodox" Catholicism to
indicate the traditional conservative sentiment.
In Peace, Cal
Evan Kalenik
Cal Eustaquio wrote:
> We Catholics use the venacular "orthodox" (with a small "o") to
> indicate
> our own language within the Catholic church. It doesn't have anything
> to
> do with anything dealing with the other Orthodox churches. Currently,
> there is an unspoken battle going on in the Catholic church which many
> of
> us on the conservative side use the term "orthodox" Catholicism to
> indicate the traditional conservative sentiment.
Well, We Catholics also use the term Orthodox Catholic, since that is
the name of the Church and that is who we are. We Catholics are also
chastised when we use the term as if "Catholic" only referred to the
Roman Catholic Church. We Catholics also used to use commonly "Greek
Catholic" as in Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. But you Roman
Catholics have very effectively taken that phrase over, so today the
Uniates are generally considered Greek Catholics even by us Catholics.
So forgive me for not appreciating the use of "orthodox" Catholic when I
see it.
Evan
Keith Bradbury
crmi...@sprynet.com wrote:
> John Simmons <stra...@strannik.com> wrote:
>
> <<SNIP>>
>
> >Evangelicals also speak of "Orthodox" doctrine (contrasted with
> >revisionism). As for using the "capital O", meaning the Orthodox
> Church,
> >it seems a bit of a stretch for a fairly new protestant (or
> >protestant-like) "church" to do this without negating history (or the
> need
> >for historical continutiy).
I find it interesting that a church could call itself "The Orthodox
Church" when it is guilty of Micah's sin (Judges 17), having images used
in worship. Orthodox with what? I have no idea. When you are the
standard by which you judge others by, I guess that makes you the
"orthodox" one and everyone else lost.
Keith Bradbury
Alfred G. Green, Jr.
> I find it interesting that a church could call itself "The Orthodox
> Church" when it is guilty of Micah's sin (Judges 17), having images used
> in worship.
Orthodox DO NOY use images in worship. They use icons as a teaching
aide.
Orthodox with what?
The Holy Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ at Pentecost. All
other churches are derived from the True Church--One, Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church--including the Roman Catholic Church and all so-called
32,000 denominations of Protestantism from the Lutheran and Anglican
reformations.
I have no idea. When you are the
> standard by which you judge others by, I guess that makes you the
> "orthodox" one and everyone else lost.
We are the standard established by Christ God by which everyone else
should judge themselves. As purveyors of the truth, we do not need to
judge others because the truth shall make all men free.
With love in IC XC,
Al
Keith Bradbury
Alfred G. Green, Jr. wrote:
> > I find it interesting that a church could call itself "The Orthodox
> > Church" when it is guilty of Micah's sin (Judges 17), having images
> used
> > in worship.
>
> Orthodox DO NOY use images in worship. They use icons as a teaching
> aide.
>
Fact is, Micah had two items made: an idol and an image, one a
statue,one a picture (an icon). He had a priest (Levite). His actions
were
condemned by God because he had violated a specific law of God, making
an image to represent God. Aaron was guilty of the same thing when he
cast the golden calf, calling it "Jehovah your God." The tradition you
speak of about Luke is a late tradition and has no basis in fact.
Whether Orthodox or Catholic, they use the same argument that what they
are doing is not worshipping an object, but using it to direct their
focus toward God, but the fact that this is exactly what Aaron and Micah
did in the Old Testament, all the while claiming to worship Jehovah,
simply goes to show that the church has a history of repeating the same
mistakes over and over again. Satan hasn't changed his tactics. Make
them think they are worshipping the true God, but introduce enough to
draw them away from Him. It's the same old story, humans fall into that
trap every time.
As for the church that Jesus established, there have been so man
additions throughout history (and subtractions as well) that what most
churches have ended up with is anything but what God intended. That's
like saying this country is everything the founding fathers intended,
when clearly it is NOTHING like what they believed in, even if we've had
an "unbroken progression" from president to president. Differing
ideologies have led this nation to a point where it no longer resembles
what the founding fathers intended. The same thing has happened in the
Orthodox church, the Catholic church, the Churches of Christ, the ICC,
the Lutheran Church, I could go on and on.
As for my tradition, I don't have much of a tradition, I just try to
understand what God's will is for me and what His instructions are from
the Word, as well as involving myself in a fellowship that strives to
understand and obey God's Word. I used to have pictures of Jesus, but as
I studied the out the Word ON MY OWN, I realized I was following
idolatry. Satan wants to attack God's basis for morality law by law,
convincing Christians and churches that what they are doing is okay by
God's standards. I suggest you look at what God says and quit being
blindly led by your church. You're essentially making the same mistake I
made when I was in the International Churches of Christ.
We are the standard established by Christ God by which everyone else
> should judge themselves. As purveyors of the truth, we do not need to
> judge others because the truth shall make all men free.
Uh-oh, sounds like another ICC to me....
barnabas
spar...@holmes.ipfw.indiana.edu wrote:
more crossposting gibberish. Spam Spam Spam. keep it in the revelant newsgroups
please?
--
Barnabas (of the Clan MacGregor) Email:(hezekiah AT idt DOT net)
All Spam mail will be forwarded to Abuse@*.*, Postmaster@*.* etc.
with the SPAM HATER Software. I've seen accounts deleted. (3) So don't even try.
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam. here spam these: postm...@agis.net
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <342DB45C...@hotmail.com>, Keith Bradbury
<kei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I find it interesting that a church could call itself "The Orthodox
> Church" when it is guilty of Micah's sin (Judges 17), having images used
> in worship. Orthodox with what? I have no idea. When you are the
We are not living before the Incarnation, when God was never seen. We are
living after the Incarnation, when God became Man, and this Man, Jesus,
could thus be depicted.
The use of images in the Church was affirmed by one of the ancient
Ecuminical Councils, the Quinisext Council, to be precise, and reaffirmed
later. What is not appropriate is representation of irrepresentable
things, like the Father. What is not appropriate is sensual
representation of Holy things.
> standard by which you judge others by, I guess that makes you the
> "orthodox" one and everyone else lost.
We are Orthodox. We are the Church of the Councils, the Church of the
Pentecost, the Church of the Apostles. We are the first Church, the last
Church, the only Church.
We are one Church, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
--
To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
postm...@aol.com
(because most of the spam I get comes from there)
John Simmons
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> Alfred G. Green, Jr. wrote:
>
> > > I find it interesting that a church could call itself "The Orthodox
> > > Church" when it is guilty of Micah's sin (Judges 17), having images
> > used
> > > in worship.
> >
> > Orthodox DO NOY use images in worship. They use icons as a teaching
> > aide.
> >
>
> Fact is, Micah had two items made: an idol and an image, one a
> statue,one a picture (an icon). He had a priest (Levite). His actions
> were
> condemned by God because he had violated a specific law of God, making
> an image to represent God. Aaron was guilty of the same thing when he
> cast the golden calf, calling it "Jehovah your God." The tradition you
> speak of about Luke is a late tradition and has no basis in fact.
1. Icon's are not used for worship.
2. Icon's are only possible after the incarnation, so the Old Testament
example is not relevant.
3. There can NEVER be an Icon depicting God (e.g. the golden calf),
with the exception of the when God dwelt among men, in which case
Christ is portrayed in human form.
The Orthodox theology of Icons is set forth in the 7th Ecumenical
Council. It was written with a careful understanding of scripture, and
the boundaries which protect the use of Icon's from Idolatry. Non
Orthodox churches have not always been careful about this, and there have
even been cases of abuse (e.g. stepping over the line) within the Orthodox
Church, but these are exceptions and are deviations from the truth.
> As for the church that Jesus established, there have been so man
> additions throughout history (and subtractions as well) that what most
> churches have ended up with is anything but what God intended. That's
> like saying this country is everything the founding fathers intended,
> when clearly it is NOTHING like what they believed in, even if we've had
>
> an "unbroken progression" from president to president. Differing
> ideologies have led this nation to a point where it no longer resembles
> what the founding fathers intended. The same thing has happened in the
> Orthodox church, the Catholic church, the Churches of Christ, the ICC,
> the Lutheran Church, I could go on and on.
You've just illustrated the point that historical succession without
ORTHODOXY OF FAITH is meaningless. If Orthodoxy seems rather "exclusive",
this is why; while Roman and Protestant churches have added revision on
top of revision, The Orthodox Church has strived to pass on what it has
received without making changes. Doctrine has been elaborated on (and
approved by the ENTIRE Christian Church, being led by the Holy Spirit),
but this is quite different from revision. Thus, it is not suprising that
the immediate successors of the Apostles, and their successors today are
not very different in their teaching, while in other "churches" there are
hardly recognizable similarities. If you think that the entire Christian
Church fell away after the last Apostle died, or the last book of the New
Testament was written, you must not think much of Christ's promise to keep
the church unconquerable by the gates of hell (Matt. 16:18).
> As for my tradition, I don't have much of a tradition, I just try to
> understand what God's will is for me and what His instructions are from
> the Word, as well as involving myself in a fellowship that strives to
> understand and obey God's Word. I used to have pictures of Jesus, but as
It's admirable that you want to understand what God's will is, and that
you are ready to receive instruction from the Word, but where do you think
that the Word came from? If you don't believe that the Holy Spirit was
guiding the Church by the Council of Nicea, then why do you accept the
canon of scripture? or do you have a revised bible with books of your own
choosing?
John
Keith Bradbury
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> We are not living before the Incarnation, when God was never seen. We
> are
> living after the Incarnation, when God became Man, and this Man,
> Jesus,
> could thus be depicted.
>
Well, tell that to God when He asks you why you disobeyed one of His
most basic commands. It doesn't matter, an image or an icon or a statue
is NOT God, not can it be a representation of God, because God gave you
the clearest picture He could when He gave you His Word, but you have
substituted images for the Word of God and use things foriegn to His
commands. You have absorbed the teachings of pagan Greek culture and
meshed them with true Christianity and have become an abomination before
the Lord.
> The use of images in the Church was affirmed by one of the ancient
> Ecuminical Councils, the Quinisext Council, to be precise, and
> reaffirmed
> later. What is not appropriate is representation of irrepresentable
> things, like the Father. What is not appropriate is sensual
> representation of Holy things.
>
> We are Orthodox. We are the Church of the Councils, the Church of the
>
> Pentecost, the Church of the Apostles. We are the first Church, the
> last
> Church, the only Church.
>
We are borg, resistance is useless...
> We are one Church, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
You are so full of baloney, it isn't even funny. You have a church that
is nothing like the Scriptures (and I have visited Orthodox services and
studied your teachings). You can believe what you like about yourselves,
but you are just deceiving yourselves. Take the nation of Israel, when
they disobeyed God and strayed from Him, they were called a harlot, and
that is what the Orthodox church is, a harlot church. You are the one
harlot, the great harlot, that sits upon the many waters and is drunk on
the blood of saints. Wake up!
>
leeNOSPAMmat...@worldnet.att.net
Keith Bradbury wrote:
>
> John Simmons wrote:
>
> > It's admirable that you want to understand what God's will is, and
> > that
> > you are ready to receive instruction from the Word, but where do you
> > think
> > that the Word came from? If you don't believe that the Holy Spirit
> > was
> > guiding the Church by the Council of Nicea, then why do you accept the
> >
> > canon of scripture? or do you have a revised bible with books of your
> > own
> > choosing?
> >
> > John
>
> Church-breathed.Secondly, I am well aware who selected these books and I
> have asked on this newsgroup before for various opinions concerning the
> book of Jude. Why is it canon when it clearly makes reference to an
> apocryphal account that is NOT accepted as canon even by your church
> (i.e. the body of Moses)? Could it be that this book, while containing
> relatively good (but not new) information is NOT intended by God to be
> canonical? I don't know, I just asked the question.
Sir,
you need to check some things, are all the OT books canonical? You
will find references to books no longer extant. take care lee.
Keith Bradbury
Keith Bradbury
leeNOSPAMmat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> I am well aware who selected these books and I
> > have asked on this newsgroup before for various opinions concerning
> the
> > book of Jude. Why is it canon when it clearly makes reference to an
> > apocryphal account that is NOT accepted as canon even by your church
>
> > (i.e. the body of Moses)? Could it be that this book, while
> containing
> > relatively good (but not new) information is NOT intended by God to
> be
> > canonical? I don't know, I just asked the question.
> Sir,
> you need to check some things, are all the OT books canonical? You
> will find references to books no longer extant. take care lee.
Since you used the word "Sir" to respond, I'm not sure if you are
directing your question at me or to John. I can't recall ever being
called sir...heheh
If the question is directed to me, I agree that there are references in
the Old Testament to books no longer extant, as there are sayings of
Jesus which writers at the end of the first century qouted which we have
no written record of. Concerning "the body of Moses," the writing this
tale comes from does exist, and is considered apocryphal by all churches
(including Roman, Orthodox, and Christian) known as the "Assumption of
Moses." Most scholars who want to accept Jude as canonical say that Jude
was referring to a popular "bed-time story" just to make his point,
although most have to admit that Jude's language betrays his belief that
the event actually happened. That the Assumption of Moses is a late
forgery is even attested to by Jewish scholars, making this a book I
have pondered whether it should be seen as Canonical. Hey, maybe someone
made a mistake. I know First Clement lost canon by one vote, and it is a
VERY good book, worth reading. Oh well.
leeNOSPAMmat...@worldnet.att.net
yes I did call you sir, manners and such. Here I suspect that we may
agree more than disagree. To be intellectually honest for myself only
here, there are certain things that I have accepted from an historical
point of view as well as scriptural references. Is the Bible we have the
canon? yes, the alternative is unthinkable. BTW for me protestant no
Deut. material. Discussions such as Trinity, same sex and abortion, I
look at the whole, conscience, prayer, and yes dare I say it tradition
to
guide me. Strange for a protestant, perhaps. Just being honest.
compliment you on your manners. Clement is pretty good, but I thought
a little second rate. meaning you could tell it was post apostolic.
take care lee.
Jeffrey P. Roberts
And part of the Catholic tradition, as is the Roman Catholic Church which
is equal to the Orthodox church on all accounts. Lest you forget we were
once one united Church.
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@edu.cornell> wrote in article
<bjm10-29099...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>...
> In article <342DB45C...@hotmail.com>, Keith Bradbury
> <kei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I find it interesting that a church could call itself "The Orthodox
> > Church" when it is guilty of Micah's sin (Judges 17), having images
used
> > in worship. Orthodox with what? I have no idea. When you are the
>
> We are not living before the Incarnation, when God was never seen. We
are
> living after the Incarnation, when God became Man, and this Man, Jesus,
> could thus be depicted.
>
> The use of images in the Church was affirmed by one of the ancient
> Ecuminical Councils, the Quinisext Council, to be precise, and reaffirmed
> later. What is not appropriate is representation of irrepresentable
> things, like the Father. What is not appropriate is sensual
> representation of Holy things.
>
> > standard by which you judge others by, I guess that makes you the
> > "orthodox" one and everyone else lost.
>
> We are Orthodox. We are the Church of the Councils, the Church of the
> Pentecost, the Church of the Apostles. We are the first Church, the last
> Church, the only Church.
>
> We are one Church, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
>
Jeffrey P. Roberts
The Holy Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church can both trace
their origins directly back to Peter, on which Christ founded his church.
Where does your authority lie?
Alfred G. Green, Jr. <aagg...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
<342AB5...@bigfoot.com>...
> R.L. Measures wrote:
> >
> > In article <342A81...@bigfoot.com>, "Alfred G. Green, Jr."
> > <aagg...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sam Cohen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What in hell does Orthodox mean? I don't think those people are
> > > > Christians!
> > >
> > > Orthodox is from two Greek words Ortho and Doxia which mean "Right
> > > Thinking". The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Christ at
> > > Pentecost in 33 A.D. All other Christian groups, Roman Catholics and
the
> > > branches of the Lutheran Protestant and Anglican reformations are
> > > derived from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...embodied
and
> > > fully revealed in Orthodoxy. You, sir, need to read a little church
> > > history before shoting off your mouth.
> > >
> > > Mr. Cohen...are you a Jew? If so, it might explain why you have no
> > > knowledge at all of church history.
> > .......................
> > - If 'Orthodox' means 'right thinking', then the word seems to imply
that
> > other religions are not thinking right.
>
> This is absolutely correct. All other so-called Christian denominations
> (some 32,000 worldwide according to a U.N. study) deviate a little to
> one heck of a whole lot from the *right thinking* teachings of Christ's
> Holy Orthodox Church.
>
> Thus, it could be said that The
> > Movement/Boston Movement/International Churches of Christ is
essentially
> > claiming to be Orthodox.
>
> I suspect it's "orthodox" with a small "o". Roman Catholics use the
> word. too, with a small "o" to back up their false claims to being the
> only purveyor of The Truth. But we all know that's hogwash.
>
Jeffrey P. Roberts
The whole point is that we were one church and still should be. We should
work to solve our differences as they are not that great.
Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote in article
<342BA9B2...@webspan.net>...
Jeffrey P. Roberts
Mr. Cohen is correct, there are but a few churches that can trace
themselves back to the original apostolic tradition. The only additions I
would make to Mr. Cohen's list are the Marionites, the Copts, the Syrian
and Armenian Churches.
Alfred G. Green, Jr. <aagg...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
> Sam Cohen wrote:
> >
> > What in hell does Orthodox mean? I don't think those people are
> > Christians!
>
> Orthodox is from two Greek words Ortho and Doxia which mean "Right
> Thinking". The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Christ at
> Pentecost in 33 A.D. All other Christian groups, Roman Catholics and the
> branches of the Lutheran Protestant and Anglican reformations are
> derived from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...embodied and
> fully revealed in Orthodoxy. You, sir, need to read a little church
> history before shoting off your mouth.
>
> Mr. Cohen...are you a Jew? If so, it might explain why you have no
> knowledge at all of church history.
>
> Al
>
> --
Constance L. Crouch
Keith Bradbury (kei...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: > >Evangelicals also speak of "Orthodox" doctrine (contrasted with
: > >revisionism). As for using the "capital O", meaning the Orthodox
: > Church,
: > >it seems a bit of a stretch for a fairly new protestant (or
: > >protestant-like) "church" to do this without negating history (or the
: > need
: > >for historical continutiy).
: I find it interesting that a church could call itself "The Orthodox
: Church" when it is guilty of Micah's sin (Judges 17), having images used
: in worship. Orthodox with what? I have no idea. When you are the
: standard by which you judge others by, I guess that makes you the
: "orthodox" one and everyone else lost.
: Keith Bradbury
The -use- of images is not prohibited & never has been. You'll recall
that God Himself ordered certain images to be used in the pursuit of
holiness, even in the building of His Temple! Have you not read that
bible you have?
"Used in worship" is NOT the same as -worshiping the images themselves.-
Our ikons are pictures of events or people -- something like the photos
you have of your family. You see the photos, maybe even kiss them, just
as we do OUR "family" pictures. They're records of our brothers & sisters
who've gone on to Paradise.
In fact, as a student of ikonography, one of the first things I learned
was that properly-speaking, ikons aren't considered to be "art," as we
moderns perceive it, anyway, nor do we even think of them as "painted,"
but "written."
They're accounts made for a people who were largely illiterate. There're
special ways, set traditions & conventions of presenting the various
images, which, to the people in the early church, were as clearly
"readable" as a simple street sign to you or I.
From "reading" their ikons, they knew their history of the bible, the
Church, & their spiritual heros & heroines (saints) as well as you or I
know pictures of famous people or places or events by watching tv. It's
no more blasphemous than that! Hm...given cable tv now-a-days, probably a
lot less! |-D
"To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of God."
These aikons are only images of people we believe sit "in the presence"
of God. There are those who -will- be closer to Him in Heaven (according
to the Christ), & that means there'll also be those who -won't.-
Connie
Constance L. Crouch
Keith Bradbury (kei...@hotmail.com) wrote:
:As for the church that Jesus established, there have been so man
:additions throughout history (and subtractions as well) that what most
:churches have ended up with is anything but what God intended.
-MOST.- That is true. But not -all-....
There're churches here & there in little-traveled nooks of the world which
have remained untainted by modernism/revisionism, & they serve to witness
that "modern" Orthodoxy -intimately- resembles the original Church. God
has given us these occasional glimpses into the past, as we put together
time capsules to preserve the past in a way mere books or human memory
-can't.- Not so, protestant "churches."
Apropo of that, we have the on-going translations of the famous dead sea
scrolls (another of God's "time capsules"), which, upon close study,
confirm the veracity of the teachings (& the undiluted bible) the Orthodox
Church uses to this day.
Sorry, Keith, but history is NOT on your side of the debate.
:That's like saying this country is everything the founding fathers
:intended, when clearly it is NOTHING like what they believed in, even if
:we've had an "unbroken progression" from president to president.
:Differing ideologies have led this nation to a point where it no longer
:resembles what the founding fathers intended. The same thing has happened
:in the Orthodox church, the Catholic church, the Churches of Christ, the
:ICC, the Lutheran Church, I could go on and on.
Not the Orthodox Church. And it's NOT like saying the same thing about
the U.S. That is a secular institution, & human institutions ALWAYS
change, over time (usually -not- for the better). But the Christ PROMISED
that the True Church would last, that "the gates of Hell will not prevail
against it."
The Christ is no liar!
:As for my tradition, I don't have much of a tradition, I just try to
:understand what God's will is for me and what His instructions are from
:the Word, as well as involving myself in a fellowship that strives to
:understand and obey God's Word.
Then you haven't read your bible, which insists you "HOLD FAST to the
traditions you've been taught." Christianity is NOT a "do-it-yourself"
religion. There are clear rules laid down by God Himslef, through the
Hoily Spirit, to his Apostles & their ordained descendants. Anyone else
who claims -any- authority is a liar.
:I used to have pictures of Jesus, but as I studied the out the Word ON MY
:OWN, I realized I was following idolatry.
Studying the scriptures ON YOUR OWN, as you freely confess to doing, is
expressly forbidden IN THE BIBLE! -- even YOUR bible! It's also dumb,
since you -can't- comprehend the bible without the Church to help you
study & understand it! Even YOUR bible says that!
:Satan wants to attack God's basis for morality law by law, convincing
:Christians and churches that what they are doing is okay by God's
:standards.
Obvioulsy, it's worked with -you.- BTW, was Satan making St. Luke sin when
he painted ikons?
:I suggest you look at what God says and quit being blindly led by your
:church.
There's NOTHING "blind" about the -true- Church. God (even in your bible,
truncated though it is), commanded us to LISTEN to His Church, or else.
Oh, & it isn't "my" church -- it's His, you'll note. Only protesters
("protestants") make up their own churches.
:You're essentially making the same mistake I made when I was in the
:International Churches of Christ.
They're a mistake all right. But we have -nothing- in common with them.
You are -still- in error, little brother. May God Himself open your eyes.
:>We are the standard established by Christ God by which everyone else
:>should judge themselves. As purveyors of the truth, we do not need to
:>judge others because the truth shall make all men free.
:Uh-oh, sounds like another ICC to me....
Sounds like the bible, to me.
Connie
the ROYster-Meister
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> I find it interesting that a church could call itself "The Orthodox
> Church" when it is guilty of Micah's sin (Judges 17), having images used
> in worship. Orthodox with what? I have no idea. When you are the
> standard by which you judge others by, I guess that makes you the
> "orthodox" one and everyone else lost.
>
> Keith Bradbury
>
As an evangelical Christian, I feel I have to point out that your
view here, Keith, is not in line with scripture or history, and shows a
total lack of understanding of the Orthodox Church and her worship.
Rather than get preachy, as many seem to prefer, I want to ask a
question: when you say that the Orthodox "use images" in worship, what
are you referring to, and how do you understand it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- the ROYster-meister + wil...@Peak.org --
one of God's >peculiar< people
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, God's peculiar people."
-- the Apostle Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the ROYster-Meister
On 29 Sep 1997, Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> In article <342DB45C...@hotmail.com>, Keith Bradbury
> <kei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I find it interesting that a church could call itself "The Orthodox
> > Church" when it is guilty of Micah's sin (Judges 17), having images used
> > in worship. Orthodox with what? I have no idea. When you are the
>
> We are not living before the Incarnation, when God was never seen. We are
> living after the Incarnation, when God became Man, and this Man, Jesus,
> could thus be depicted.
>
This is a VERY good point! As Jesus said, "One greater than the
Temple is here"; it is just as true of Him that "One greater than the
Law is here". The prohibition against imaging God was rendered impotent
the moment God imaged Himself in Jesus, who is, as Paul says in
Collosians, the very image of the un-imageable (to coin a word) God.
> The use of images in the Church was affirmed by one of the ancient
> Ecuminical Councils, the Quinisext Council, to be precise, and reaffirmed
> later. What is not appropriate is representation of irrepresentable
> things, like the Father. What is not appropriate is sensual
> representation of Holy things.
>
Perhaps more significantly: contrary to the way many (so-called)
Protestants count the "Ten Commandments", the command against images is
*not* one of the Ten, but is an appendage to the command to have no other
gods. That this is so is proven by the fact that it is God Himself who
very hortly thereafter commands the making of images of things both on
the earth and above the earth, images which are to be placed in the
sanctuary, upon the Ark of the Covenant and other implements. Thus the
words, "make no graven image", do not mean that no images of anything are
to be placed in a place of worship (since God Himself commands that
certain such images are to be placed), but is a comment on the great
command to have no other Gods: don't even think of a form for God, so
don't make anything that even suggests an atttempt to represent Him.
But as you noted above, God made an image of Himself. Jesus is
God, and so we do now, in very truth, know what God looks like
physically, because God, tho spirit, now has a physical appearance.
> > standard by which you judge others by, I guess that makes you the
> > "orthodox" one and everyone else lost.
>
> We are Orthodox. We are the Church of the Councils, the Church of the
> Pentecost, the Church of the Apostles. We are the first Church, the last
> Church, the only Church.
>
Fine, until the last. The "only Church"? Taken seriously, that
means that there are no Christians except Orthodox Christians, because,
as is clear in scripture and taught by the Fathers, there is no salvation
outside the Church. But what is the Church? As St. Paul teaches, the
Church is the Body of Christ, consisting of all those who trust in Him.
So in a very basic and proper sense, any gathering of people who believe
in Him is in fact the Church.
This is not to say that such a gathering may not be misled, mixed
up, adhering to off-the-wall practices, etc. After all, St. Paul
addresses groups clearly in such conitions as "the Church", "the
faithful", the "elect", etc., and calls them his brothers in Christ. If
they are brothers in Christ, then they are the Church, because the Church
is those who are in Christ.
Now if it is faithful, unbroken historical continuity with the
Church of the first centuries, the Church of the Apostles and their
students, then yes -- the Orthodox are the only bodies with such a
claim. But that is a slightly different thing.
> We are one Church, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
>
Alas, since their are Christians in many different denominations,
and since there are even many different denominations with Christians in
them, I deeply suspect that the Church as we presently see it is neither
"one", "holy", or "catholic". And since those are aspects of the Chruch
which is apostolic, I suspect also that the Church as we see it is not
properly apostolic, either. We have, unfortunately, divided the Body;
pieces have gone off in different directions, each claiming to be the
whole, so that we are more a collection of body parts than a Body. Yet
since we are all one Body because we are all in the one, same Christ, we
all suffer from these divisions, whether we know it or not.
Gerry Lynch
In article <01bcd2a1$fc2ce6e0$cb512399@default>, jrob...@msn.com says...
>
>Try to quote correctly it should be "We are Borg resistance is futile" As
>for the other meaningless statements you made you are wrong. Your Church
>whether you want to admit it or not was the bastard child of King Henry the
>VIII, because he wanted to be promiscuous. It is a bastardization of
>Catholicism, and has no authority other than that of man.
You of course know what God thinks in every detail, even though you are a
finite being and He is infinite. A bit arrogant, methinks.
'Resistance is futile. Your denomination is irrelevant. You too will
become one with the Borg.' Proof by assertion. Weak.
Gerard James Anthony Lynch, GI0RTN
--. .. ----- .-. - -.
http://members.tripod.com/~gi0rtn
North Belfast Alliance http://members.tripod.com/~gi0rtn/nballiance
'Oh Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.'
St. Augustine
Raymond
Bryan J. Maloney wrote in message ...
>
>
>Your list of books is excessively Protestant, furthermore, it contains no
>Orthodox writings at all.
Interesting concept, only wrong, since the Orthodox Churches join the WCC
and which is a Protestant organization, they are also PROTESTANT. They
will tell you they belong to the WCC and are a member of this Protestant
group. So being excessively Protestant would have to be also Orthodox.
Unless the Orthodox and the WCC have both lied about membership?
I do not even know about the books, only your statement is would be as wrong
as his books would be, as a phone call to the WCC or the Orthodox Church
would prove.
Raymond
>--
>To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
>
>For all you automated email spammers, here's the addresses of the board of
the FCC:
>
>Chmn. Reed Hunt: rhu...@fcc.gov
>Comm. James Quello: jQu...@fcc.gov
>Comm. Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
>Comm. Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
>http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Evan Kalenik
Raymond wrote:
> Interesting concept, only wrong, since the Orthodox Churches join the WCC
> and which is a Protestant organization, they are also PROTESTANT. They
> will tell you they belong to the WCC and are a member of this Protestant
> group. So being excessively Protestant would have to be also Orthodox.
> Unless the Orthodox and the WCC have both lied about membership?
While the majority of the members of the WCC are Protestant Churches, that does
not make all of them "Protestants". While not a member, even the Roman Catholic
Church has been a participant in some of the discussions that have gone on with
the WCC, so by your logic, Roman Catholics are also "Protestants". I would
suggest that you look again at just what the WCC is, since it is not what you
implied.
> I do not even know about the books, only your statement is would be as wrong
> as his books would be, as a phone call to the WCC or the Orthodox Church
> would prove.
I might suggest that YOU call the WCC and find out for yourself about how
mistaken you are.
Evan