OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 05:00:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Questions no Protestant can Answer  (Read 13546 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2010, 12:51:02 PM »

Quote
I assume you are not writing in America - or "the Colonies" as we sometimes call it.
 Wink

Well, I'm not.  Wink I'm from the Philippines.

The thing is, why not seek reform within the Church?

We did. Unfortunately, some people will always stick to the old heresies ;-)

Quote
Why do you have to go out of the Church? I understand that there are several doctrines that don't seem to be all that biblical but one should always remember that there are a million things happening outside the Bible!

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

The Church precedes the Bible.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #91 on: January 07, 2010, 01:54:15 PM »

Please don't take this personally: Smiley

What Protestants need to remember is that it was not them who chose the canon of the Bible (i.e. the chose books of the Bible). The Church that chose it was the same Church that claimed itself One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Btw, Yochanan, it just occurred to me to ask: Did you know, the Bible that Protestant groups are talking about isn't actually always the same set of texts as the one Orthodox people use? According to wiki, the Orthodox Church includes 1Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3-4 Maccabees, Odes, Wisdom and Sirach, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah, whereas the Protestant churches leave these out. I don't know how much that affects your argument - I just found it interesting Smiley
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2010, 01:58:29 PM »

For this reason and to avoid confusion, I would usually substitute "the canon of the NT" for "Bible" in the above argument.
Logged
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2010, 09:17:22 PM »

Please don't take this personally: Smiley

What Protestants need to remember is that it was not them who chose the canon of the Bible (i.e. the chose books of the Bible). The Church that chose it was the same Church that claimed itself One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Btw, Yochanan, it just occurred to me to ask: Did you know, the Bible that Protestant groups are talking about isn't actually always the same set of texts as the one Orthodox people use? According to wiki, the Orthodox Church includes 1Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3-4 Maccabees, Odes, Wisdom and Sirach, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah, whereas the Protestant churches leave these out. I don't know how much that affects your argument - I just found it interesting Smiley

1Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3-4 Maccabees, Odes, Wisdom and Sirach, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah are apocryphal books to the Orthodox. To the Catholics (of Rome) those are deutero-canonicals (i.e. Second Canon). The thing is these books are not part of the Canon of the Bible, we never added any books in the Canon of the Bible - they are as fresh as when St. Athanasius picked them. Smiley I know for a fact that protestants, too, have an apocrypha. We are on same ground my friend.
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2010, 09:41:40 PM »

To David Young:

Quote
A very good question, and one that has exercised many serious hearts and minds - though I am not sure it sits well under the title "Questions no Protestant can answer". But different people come to different answers, of which three spring immediately to mind:

1) I think it is right to leave if one is expelled. A number of denominations, churches and  associations of churches have come into being when they held loyally and fervently to the tenets of their previous church, but where that previous church has "lost its first love", become respectable and "luke warm", and expelled them. Their new church, association or denomination is not really new, for it is the parent body which retains the name but has eschewed the teachings or spirit on which it was founded.

a. where that previous church has "lost its first love"

The Church which Christ founded on Himself cannot and will not lose its First Love. As I said before: "and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." And Christ spoke of not every "Christian" community in the world purporting to be Christian. I mean seriously if this was true why would the Gnostics be anathematized by St. Paul?

b. for it is the parent body which retains the name but has eschewed the teachings or spirit on which it was founded.

No! The Parent Body cannot eschew the teachings on which it was founded. Let us presume this to be true: then when then did the "Parent Body" start eschewing the teachings of our Lord? And this Parent Body has been enslaving Christians for more than a thousand years? Is God so merciful as to allow this?

As for me and all other Orthodox Christians we believe that the Apostolicity of the Church as very important as Jesus promised the Apostolic Church to be fail-proof till the end of the age. And this Apostolic Church still exists until this very day.

Quote
2) It is harder to know what is right when one is not expelled, and must take a personal decision guided by one's own conscience. This can be very hard and painful. Some opt for just what you advocate, stay in, and often describe themselves as "in it to win it".

Why?

Quote
3) Some feel, often with deep sadness, that the time has come to leave the parent body. This is often when prominent leaders in the denomination are tolerated, who deny fundamental truths of the parent church, such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and other cardinal dogmas.

It is never up to a single person to preserve the faith. It is for the whole Church to decide in a Council.
"It seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28)

Quote
I left Methodism in 1966, largely because I had come to believe that the denomination which retained the name "Methodist" was no longer preaching and practising that religion. One may say I was wrong, or say I was right, but whichever decision people take in such circumstances, they will stand or fall by their own Master, and we are not authorised to judge them - unless of course they are blatantly, conspicuously  and probably gleefully divisive in their spirit and manner.

Perhaps Methodism could do that: but certainly not the Church which Our Lord and Savior himself founded: the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Quote
The ordination of women, of course, is one new practice which has moved some men to make this painful decision, and they have moved in various directions - to Rome, to Orthodoxy, or to Evangelical churches.

Ordination of deaconesses were done in ancient times. And they are planning to revive it today. No: a woman cannot be a priest! Imagine calling someone Fr. Mary!  laugh a woman cannot be a father.  Wink

Best wishes

yochanan
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,376



« Reply #95 on: January 08, 2010, 12:33:33 AM »

What Protestants need to remember is that it was not them who chose the canon of the Bible (i.e. the chose books of the Bible). The Church that chose it was the same Church that claimed itself One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The two marks of which no Protestant Church could ever have: the marks One and Apostolic. Although oneness can be claimed by several arguments such as "all Christians in the world are united in Christ" - I would reply with: "then why do you seek to correct other denominations? What right have you? They are united to Christ as much as you are. (at least that is what you believe)" And Apostolicity is impossible to claim since they are certainly cut off from physical apostolic origins and they don't even claim it.

Well, what the heck, I'll have a go at this. The church did not "choose" the canon in the sense that someone might choose what he is to eat; the church recognized the authority of those works which were accepted into the canon, or in another sense, the church bound itself to those works and not others. Obviously this presupposes the church of the time being capable of such recognition, but that is not that high a standard.

Likewise, the whole question of "sameness" is begged. As no church of today is "physically" apostolic, which I choose to interpret as meaning that it doesn't incorporate, in the here and now, the original apostles themselves, you are simply presuming that your church's theory of succession is correct. Likewise with unity: when one achieves unity through exclusion-- and that's certainly what Orthodoxy and Catholicism do-- one does no more than declare one's own church the winner, as though anyone who is so excluded should feel bound by such self-elevations. Loyalty cannot be expected of non-members.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #96 on: January 08, 2010, 07:26:52 AM »


Ordination of deaconesses were done in ancient times. And they are planning to revive it today. No: a woman cannot be a priest! Imagine calling someone Fr. Mary!  laugh a woman cannot be a father.  Wink

Best wishes

yochanan

I'm guessing you're joking with that argument Smiley

But don't you have Orthodox nuns who take men's names? We do: my cousin was Sister George, and no-one found that funny. It's common to hear of nuns who are Mother Michael, Mother Paul, etc.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #97 on: January 08, 2010, 07:30:51 AM »

Please don't take this personally: Smiley

What Protestants need to remember is that it was not them who chose the canon of the Bible (i.e. the chose books of the Bible). The Church that chose it was the same Church that claimed itself One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Btw, Yochanan, it just occurred to me to ask: Did you know, the Bible that Protestant groups are talking about isn't actually always the same set of texts as the one Orthodox people use? According to wiki, the Orthodox Church includes 1Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3-4 Maccabees, Odes, Wisdom and Sirach, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah, whereas the Protestant churches leave these out. I don't know how much that affects your argument - I just found it interesting Smiley

1Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3-4 Maccabees, Odes, Wisdom and Sirach, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah are apocryphal books to the Orthodox. To the Catholics (of Rome) those are deutero-canonicals (i.e. Second Canon). The thing is these books are not part of the Canon of the Bible, we never added any books in the Canon of the Bible - they are as fresh as when St. Athanasius picked them. Smiley I know for a fact that protestants, too, have an apocrypha. We are on same ground my friend.

Sure. I just found it interesting, I guess because I only found out about the non-canonical books relatively recently. It also seems to me interesting that some people will talk as if the Bible fell out of the sky complete and neatly printed, around 1800AD. I think they're wrong, but I also think their attitude towards the text is just so different that it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that the Orthodox Church 'chose' the Bible books for them.
Logged
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #98 on: January 08, 2010, 07:32:22 AM »

What Protestants need to remember is that it was not them who chose the canon of the Bible (i.e. the chose books of the Bible). The Church that chose it was the same Church that claimed itself One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The two marks of which no Protestant Church could ever have: the marks One and Apostolic. Although oneness can be claimed by several arguments such as "all Christians in the world are united in Christ" - I would reply with: "then why do you seek to correct other denominations? What right have you? They are united to Christ as much as you are. (at least that is what you believe)" And Apostolicity is impossible to claim since they are certainly cut off from physical apostolic origins and they don't even claim it.

Well, what the heck, I'll have a go at this. The church did not "choose" the canon in the sense that someone might choose what he is to eat; the church recognized the authority of those works which were accepted into the canon, or in another sense, the church bound itself to those works and not others. Obviously this presupposes the church of the time being capable of such recognition, but that is not that high a standard.

Likewise, the whole question of "sameness" is begged. As no church of today is "physically" apostolic, which I choose to interpret as meaning that it doesn't incorporate, in the here and now, the original apostles themselves, you are simply presuming that your church's theory of succession is correct. Likewise with unity: when one achieves unity through exclusion-- and that's certainly what Orthodoxy and Catholicism do-- one does no more than declare one's own church the winner, as though anyone who is so excluded should feel bound by such self-elevations. Loyalty cannot be expected of non-members.


Not only Orthodoxy and Catholicism does that (unity through exclusion) St. Paul as well and wait also St. Peter and oh! Wait! St. Jude as well! I guess they too are worthy of rebuke.  Roll Eyes
 
The thing is there was and is One Church: even those who followed John the Baptist alone were not accepted until they received true Baptism. If the Church were united only with "faith" then what is the importance of those people from John's group to know about the Holy Spirit? After all they had already known Jesus Christ through faith: therefore, they are saved.

As long as biblical exegesis is made without the basis of the 2000 year journey of Christ's Church in the world it would be like interpreting a pagan ritual book without knowing the cultural and idiomatic expressions and beliefs of the pagans! What was yesterday cannot and will not be understood in the context of today: even if historians and great scholars research on these stuff they are never given that degree of sureness that Jesus gave to His Church.

And I know that you will argue again that the Church is the entirety of Christians all over the world (yes, including the Muslims, they believe in Prophet Isa after all)  Roll Eyes

Hope my sarcasm helps  Grin
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #99 on: January 08, 2010, 07:37:47 AM »


Ordination of deaconesses were done in ancient times. And they are planning to revive it today. No: a woman cannot be a priest! Imagine calling someone Fr. Mary!  laugh a woman cannot be a father.  Wink

Best wishes

yochanan

I'm guessing you're joking with that argument Smiley

But don't you have Orthodox nuns who take men's names? We do: my cousin was Sister George, and no-one found that funny. It's common to hear of nuns who are Mother Michael, Mother Paul, etc.

LOL  laugh

I really don't know. Hahaha. Ive never been to an Orthodox Parish before! All the more a community! I'm still a catechumen.  Cool Your more Orthodox than me!!!  Cry

Please don't take this personally: Smiley

What Protestants need to remember is that it was not them who chose the canon of the Bible (i.e. the chose books of the Bible). The Church that chose it was the same Church that claimed itself One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Btw, Yochanan, it just occurred to me to ask: Did you know, the Bible that Protestant groups are talking about isn't actually always the same set of texts as the one Orthodox people use? According to wiki, the Orthodox Church includes 1Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3-4 Maccabees, Odes, Wisdom and Sirach, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah, whereas the Protestant churches leave these out. I don't know how much that affects your argument - I just found it interesting Smiley

1Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3-4 Maccabees, Odes, Wisdom and Sirach, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah are apocryphal books to the Orthodox. To the Catholics (of Rome) those are deutero-canonicals (i.e. Second Canon). The thing is these books are not part of the Canon of the Bible, we never added any books in the Canon of the Bible - they are as fresh as when St. Athanasius picked them. Smiley I know for a fact that protestants, too, have an apocrypha. We are on same ground my friend.

Sure. I just found it interesting, I guess because I only found out about the non-canonical books relatively recently. It also seems to me interesting that some people will talk as if the Bible fell out of the sky complete and neatly printed, around 1800AD. I think they're wrong, but I also think their attitude towards the text is just so different that it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that the Orthodox Church 'chose' the Bible books for them.

Why doesn't it make sense?




Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #100 on: January 08, 2010, 07:51:01 AM »


Ordination of deaconesses were done in ancient times. And they are planning to revive it today. No: a woman cannot be a priest! Imagine calling someone Fr. Mary!  laugh a woman cannot be a father.  Wink

Best wishes

yochanan

I'm guessing you're joking with that argument Smiley

But don't you have Orthodox nuns who take men's names? We do: my cousin was Sister George, and no-one found that funny. It's common to hear of nuns who are Mother Michael, Mother Paul, etc.

LOL  laugh

I really don't know. Hahaha. Ive never been to an Orthodox Parish before! All the more a community! I'm still a catechumen.  Cool Your more Orthodox than me!!!  Cry

Don't be sad, you may be assured of my heretic status  Wink

Quote
Please don't take this personally: Smiley

What Protestants need to remember is that it was not them who chose the canon of the Bible (i.e. the chose books of the Bible). The Church that chose it was the same Church that claimed itself One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Btw, Yochanan, it just occurred to me to ask: Did you know, the Bible that Protestant groups are talking about isn't actually always the same set of texts as the one Orthodox people use? According to wiki, the Orthodox Church includes 1Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3-4 Maccabees, Odes, Wisdom and Sirach, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah, whereas the Protestant churches leave these out. I don't know how much that affects your argument - I just found it interesting Smiley

1Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3-4 Maccabees, Odes, Wisdom and Sirach, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah are apocryphal books to the Orthodox. To the Catholics (of Rome) those are deutero-canonicals (i.e. Second Canon). The thing is these books are not part of the Canon of the Bible, we never added any books in the Canon of the Bible - they are as fresh as when St. Athanasius picked them. Smiley I know for a fact that protestants, too, have an apocrypha. We are on same ground my friend.

Sure. I just found it interesting, I guess because I only found out about the non-canonical books relatively recently. It also seems to me interesting that some people will talk as if the Bible fell out of the sky complete and neatly printed, around 1800AD. I think they're wrong, but I also think their attitude towards the text is just so different that it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that the Orthodox Church 'chose' the Bible books for them.

Why doesn't it make sense?


Well, I don't deny it might be very instructive to the 'God spoke English and the Bible was written in Times New Roman' brigade to tell them that the choosing of the canon (and the apocrypha) was a long process. But I don't really see that the Orthodox Church 'chose', say, the Good News Bible. That text is too inflected with assumptions about the nature of faith, which post-date Orthodox consensus on books of the Bible by quite some way.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,816


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #101 on: January 08, 2010, 09:00:07 AM »

nuns who take men's names? We do: my cousin was Sister George, and no-one found that funny. It's common

Hmm... throws up some interesting speculations. I have long thought I should like to found a Baptist monastery - on the old Celtic model practised at Lindisfarne under Aidan - without of course the requirement of life-long vows or celibacy. I have even identified the site - a certain abandoned Orthodox monastery up in the foothills of the Pindos Mountains, with orchards and a flowing stream close by. I could even take the title Baba, though not, I think, followed by a woman's name. Perhaps Baba Ælfric?

Hey ho - I don't think I'd get many monks (or dervishes, if I'm baba).

But we've wandered off the point again...
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #102 on: January 08, 2010, 10:02:02 AM »

Quote
That text is too inflected with assumptions about the nature of faith, which post-date Orthodox consensus on books of the Bible by quite some way.

Well, yes, you mean its been hand picked right? By other scholars? Not the original Septuagint. Is that what you mean?

Well I guess your right.  Grin

Honestly this is the first time I have ever had a discussion with a Protestant (well Protestants actually, hehe) who take heed to these theological things. Indeed, this mood of ours will be key to soon reaching understanding or if not peaceful co-existence  Wink (NO SUICIDE BOMBINGS)

Well, I would argue that still the texts are essentially the same even with those assumptions. And that the Church survived even without those assumptions. It even survived for 330 years without the Bible, well at least without the New Testament.

Peace  Cool
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 10:08:06 AM by yochanan » Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #103 on: January 08, 2010, 10:28:25 AM »

Quote
That text is too inflected with assumptions about the nature of faith, which post-date Orthodox consensus on books of the Bible by quite some way.

Well, yes, you mean its been hand picked right? By other scholars? Not the original Septuagint. Is that what you mean?

Well, partly. But also, translated so oddly that it no longer really holds the original sense. My favourite example is the translation that 'A light shines in the darkness. And the darkness did not understand it'. This is a misunderstanding of what the King James Bible means when it says, 'the darkness comprehended it not' (ie. the darkness did not overwhelm the light). WHen we've got a misunderstanding of a translation, we're moving a long way from the Bible as I think Orthodox scholars would teach it.

Quote
Well I guess your right.  Grin

Honestly this is the first time I have ever had a discussion with a Protestant (well Protestants actually, hehe) who take heed to these theological things. Indeed, this mood of ours will be key to soon reaching understanding or if not peaceful co-existence  Wink (NO SUICIDE BOMBINGS)

Don't get your hopes too far up - I'm not hard-line sola scriptura. But there are plenty of theologically sane Protestants, you just have to find us.

Quote
Well, I would argue that still the texts are essentially the same even with those assumptions. And that the Church survived even without those assumptions. It even survived for 330 years without the Bible, well at least without the New Testament.

Peace  Cool

Sure, I agree.
Logged
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #104 on: January 08, 2010, 10:47:47 AM »

Quote
That text is too inflected with assumptions about the nature of faith, which post-date Orthodox consensus on books of the Bible by quite some way.

Well, yes, you mean its been hand picked right? By other scholars? Not the original Septuagint. Is that what you mean?

Well, partly. But also, translated so oddly that it no longer really holds the original sense. My favourite example is the translation that 'A light shines in the darkness. And the darkness did not understand it'. This is a misunderstanding of what the King James Bible means when it says, 'the darkness comprehended it not' (ie. the darkness did not overwhelm the light). WHen we've got a misunderstanding of a translation, we're moving a long way from the Bible as I think Orthodox scholars would teach it.

Quote
Well I guess your right.  Grin

Honestly this is the first time I have ever had a discussion with a Protestant (well Protestants actually, hehe) who take heed to these theological things. Indeed, this mood of ours will be key to soon reaching understanding or if not peaceful co-existence  Wink (NO SUICIDE BOMBINGS)

Don't get your hopes too far up - I'm not hard-line sola scriptura. But there are plenty of theologically sane Protestants, you just have to find us.

Quote
Well, I would argue that still the texts are essentially the same even with those assumptions. And that the Church survived even without those assumptions. It even survived for 330 years without the Bible, well at least without the New Testament.

Peace  Cool

Sure, I agree.

Orthodoxy has the Greek language, but not just any Greek language but Church Greek, the Greek the Early Saints used. The Original NT is in Greek thus it is less likely for the Church to misinterpret it (well granting that there is a possibility that the Church could teach error).

Well if you agree with my last statement then you shouldn't be Protestant, you should be Orthodox! Or at least Roman Catholic.  Roll Eyes
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #105 on: January 08, 2010, 12:00:01 PM »

Orthodoxy has the Greek language, but not just any Greek language but Church Greek, the Greek the Early Saints used.

Are you sure about that? I don't remember hearing that Liturgical Greek was the same as Koine Greek, but I could be wrong.

Well if you agree with my last statement then you shouldn't be Protestant, you should be Orthodox! Or at least Roman Catholic.  Roll Eyes

Actually she's Anglican; a Church that has never claimed to be Sola Scriptura, but rather built on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #106 on: January 08, 2010, 12:42:30 PM »

Orthodoxy has the Greek language, but not just any Greek language but Church Greek, the Greek the Early Saints used.

Are you sure about that? I don't remember hearing that Liturgical Greek was the same as Koine Greek, but I could be wrong.

Well if you agree with my last statement then you shouldn't be Protestant, you should be Orthodox! Or at least Roman Catholic.  Roll Eyes

Actually she's Anglican; a Church that has never claimed to be Sola Scriptura, but rather built on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

 Cheesy

Indeed, Handmaiden!

I think koine and liturgical Greek are quite different, but my Greek isn't great. Besides, one might say that the Catholics have (or had!) Latin, and that's the language the later saints used. Does the presence of the saints sanctify the language?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #107 on: January 08, 2010, 01:29:35 PM »

Besides, one might say that the Catholics have (or had!) Latin, and that's the language the later saints used.

Some of them, anyways! Wink
Logged
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #108 on: January 08, 2010, 11:43:45 PM »

Orthodoxy has the Greek language, but not just any Greek language but Church Greek, the Greek the Early Saints used.

Are you sure about that? I don't remember hearing that Liturgical Greek was the same as Koine Greek, but I could be wrong.

Well if you agree with my last statement then you shouldn't be Protestant, you should be Orthodox! Or at least Roman Catholic.  Roll Eyes

Actually she's Anglican; a Church that has never claimed to be Sola Scriptura, but rather built on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

 Cheesy

Indeed, Handmaiden!

I think koine and liturgical Greek are quite different, but my Greek isn't great. Besides, one might say that the Catholics have (or had!) Latin, and that's the language the later saints used. Does the presence of the saints sanctify the language?

I knew Church of England meant Anglican! LOL. I was confused because you called yourself 'Protestant'. I really don't think Anglicans are Protestant. They're better called 'Episcopal'.
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #109 on: January 09, 2010, 06:43:50 AM »

Orthodoxy has the Greek language, but not just any Greek language but Church Greek, the Greek the Early Saints used.

Are you sure about that? I don't remember hearing that Liturgical Greek was the same as Koine Greek, but I could be wrong.

Well if you agree with my last statement then you shouldn't be Protestant, you should be Orthodox! Or at least Roman Catholic.  Roll Eyes

Actually she's Anglican; a Church that has never claimed to be Sola Scriptura, but rather built on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

 Cheesy

Indeed, Handmaiden!

I think koine and liturgical Greek are quite different, but my Greek isn't great. Besides, one might say that the Catholics have (or had!) Latin, and that's the language the later saints used. Does the presence of the saints sanctify the language?

I knew Church of England meant Anglican! LOL. I was confused because you called yourself 'Protestant'. I really don't think Anglicans are Protestant. They're better called 'Episcopal'.

You're welcome to call us whatever you wish.

Logged
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #110 on: January 09, 2010, 10:20:47 AM »

Orthodoxy has the Greek language, but not just any Greek language but Church Greek, the Greek the Early Saints used.

Are you sure about that? I don't remember hearing that Liturgical Greek was the same as Koine Greek, but I could be wrong.

Well if you agree with my last statement then you shouldn't be Protestant, you should be Orthodox! Or at least Roman Catholic.  Roll Eyes

Actually she's Anglican; a Church that has never claimed to be Sola Scriptura, but rather built on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

 Cheesy

Indeed, Handmaiden!

I think koine and liturgical Greek are quite different, but my Greek isn't great. Besides, one might say that the Catholics have (or had!) Latin, and that's the language the later saints used. Does the presence of the saints sanctify the language?

I knew Church of England meant Anglican! LOL. I was confused because you called yourself 'Protestant'. I really don't think Anglicans are Protestant. They're better called 'Episcopal'.

You're welcome to call us whatever you wish.



Then we don't have to argue about anything then Smiley The Anglican and Orthodox Churches have very much in common. I think all they need is to shake hands and voila: they're One Church. Don't you agree?
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.119 seconds with 49 queries.