Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
51
the narrative matters more than actual facts

Christ and the Apostles are clear that a major actor in the divinizing process (i.e., salvation) is truth. "Narrative" won't cut it.

Talk about the Truth to the faithless...
52
Faith Issues / Re: Icon corner question from non-religious person
« Last post by Diego on Yesterday at 09:55:10 PM »
"Worship" implies, in modern parlance, offering divine honour to. "Respect" does not so imply. In older forms of the language, they were interchangeable. They are no longer, as any speaker of the language should know. I respect my Nation's flag. I do not worship it. There is a difference.
53
Faith Issues / Re: Icon corner question from non-religious person
« Last post by Minnesotan on Yesterday at 09:43:57 PM »
"With my body, I thee...."
54
Hhahaha.  you're clearly an apologist of your own sorts.
55
The Gospels are late, around 2nd or 3rd century, and probably weren't written by anyone who knew Jesus. The authorship (Matthew, Luke, Mark, John) were attributed later in order to give those texts authority.

There's no credible scholar out there that believes those texts were early enough that were written by witnesses that demonstrate how the early church viewed them.

Paul's letters on the other hand are probably authentic although he didn't know the historical Jesus.

You just won't find an authentic early urtext that will confirm traditional Orthodoxy because it doesn't match up with the paleography. What we have are various later texts from different sources that slowly constructed an Orthodox Christology while removing unorthodox views.

Haha.  Thank you Bart Ehrman. 

https://youtu.be/zrWoG8IckyE
Oh so Ehrman bothers you? Well that's good since no historian contradicts his conclusions. Only apologists have an issue with him.
56
Faith Issues / Re: Icon corner question from non-religious person
« Last post by Iconodule on Yesterday at 09:26:10 PM »
"Worship" and "respect" are interchangeable as anyone who really knows English literature should know.
57
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: The Creed and the Filioque
« Last post by byhisgrace on Yesterday at 09:23:27 PM »
I think this has become needlessly heated. Catholics and Orthodox would agree in perhaps 95% to 98% of what we confess together, so I think there is no need to attack each other over slight disagreements. If both sides are open to it, the Bishops of both our Churches can come to an agreement over this, in a future Ecumenical Council. In discussing such a lofty doctrine, we should also keep in mind the guiding principle of St. Maximus in the disagreement between Greeks and Latins, the other side "cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do."
+1

I will add that these issues are beyond most of our pay-grades, and are best left to the experts in theology, late-antiquity and medieval history, and/or Greek and Latin.
58
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Reception of the Eucharist
« Last post by minasoliman on Yesterday at 09:19:12 PM »
A whole lot of Ethiopian parishes in the DC area alone.
59
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Reception of the Eucharist
« Last post by coptic orthodox boy on Yesterday at 09:13:53 PM »
Perhaps a more succinct question could be: If you consider EO and OO both Orthodox (pan-Orthodox) how do you practice this "pan-Orthodoxy?"
Thanks

This is a broader question, IMO, as it could also involve what you do at home and not just what church(es) you attend.  Personally, I make selective use of EO prayer materials, spiritual works, and theological books as and when I deem appropriate.

Thanks Mor,
Interpret the question as you will.  You're a graduate from St. Vladimir's Seminary right?  What was the environment like when you were there?  Were you able to commune at the chapel or did you drive to a local OO parish?  Did they consider you as an outsider?  If you wrote papers in defense of a particular OO how did you professors receive your papers?

On a side note I really regret not branching out more when I was in the D.C. area.  I think there was a parish or two from each OO church in the area and D.C. has a number of EO cathedrals, really should have explored more when I was in that area (and still practicing). 
60
The Gospels are late, around 2nd or 3rd century, and probably weren't written by anyone who knew Jesus. The authorship (Matthew, Luke, Mark, John) were attributed later in order to give those texts authority.

There's no credible scholar out there that believes those texts were early enough that were written by witnesses that demonstrate how the early church viewed them.

Paul's letters on the other hand are probably authentic although he didn't know the historical Jesus.

You just won't find an authentic early urtext that will confirm traditional Orthodoxy because it doesn't match up with the paleography. What we have are various later texts from different sources that slowly constructed an Orthodox Christology while removing unorthodox views.

Haha.  Thank you Bart Ehrman. 

https://youtu.be/zrWoG8IckyE
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »