No, you wish to defend your particular perversion of the Christian faith.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message.
Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation). (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)
The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband. This is another reason many women cover.
Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".
In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should. Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.
Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."
Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.
All I can do is shrug and move on.
Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
I can dislike non-biblically backed parts of the "living tradition", while embracing biblically backed parts of the living tradition... But this is not the issue. The issue is for nearly 1940-1960 years, almost all EO women wore coverings. This is EO vs. EO on the tradition, I'm just making the points in favor of the.... well... EO.If you wish to defend the Orthodox faith, then embrace the whole faith and become Orthodox. If you wish to mix and match elements of the Orthodox faith with elements of an Amish faith and elements of whatever other faiths suit your fancy, then please don't put yourself forward as an authority on things Orthodox. You are not an Orthodox Christian. We don't need your defense.
I disagree, "Says the guy" makes it personal. But anyway...
Here's where I think many misunderstand...
I wish to defend the Christian faith the way it was given to us.
Perversion of what, the scriptures? I'm sorry if the church doesn't entirely follow them or what God commands of the people. So if you would like the parts of the "living church" to dictate against what God commanded of you, that's your business.
This is not mixing elements of the Orthodox or Amish/Anabaptist faith - this is about grasping on to the strings that remain of original Christianity. This is about grasping originality. I cling to originality. Women covering their heads were in original Christianity, written in the scripture, and part of the history of most of Christianity.
On what authority do you make your unique understanding of "original" Christianity definitive? The only thing original about your mix-and-match version of Christianity is that you created it.
You don't need authority to read and understand history. Show me an iconostasis in from 40 A.D. to 100 A.D. As far as I can tell, they didn't exist. Yet so many fervently bow towards them.
I do not forward myself as an authority on Orthodoxy, but I've been an Eastern Orthodox Christian longer than many on this forum have been alive.
But you are not Orthodox now, nor is what you now preach Orthodox. The length of time you have been Orthodox in the past means nothing now if you have since fallen into heresy.
One man's heresy is another man's salvation. You should look to the Orthodox bishops for that. How many schisms now? Ecumenism, beards, calendars anyone? The length of time I have been Orthodox means that I have had experience in the church. It means that I'm not talking blindly about something I know nothing about.
I do not defend the Eastern Orthodox Church. I defend the original Christian elements within Eastern Orthodoxy.
On what authority do you define what is original and what is not? Your own? Don't tell me it's biblical, since you are essentially then positing your own interpretation of the Scriptures against that of the Church.
Original is what the original Christians practiced. By the example I gave, they gave their tithes to widows and orphans. More of an example, they did not venerate icons. Tertullian only mentioned art in somewhere in 160-200c, which was art of a "shepherd" on Christian cups. Clement of Alexandria mention sealing rings with Christian fish in from 150-212.
Oh but St. Luke supposedly had and icon.... With no proof. Of course. Well that's what the legend in the church says anyway.
So when you tell me not to use the scriptures as I see them but as the church sees them... How about the writings of the "saints" the church claims is theirs (which of course, they didn't practice many things the church did but it sure looks good on paper)? <-talking of early saints. Veneration of iconography is neither biblical or written of by the early Christians.
I do not offend the Eastern Orthodox Church. I offend the parts of the Eastern Orthodox church that has betrayed original Christianity & God's commands.
Who are you to define for us what "original" Christianity is and what God's commands are? God, through St. Paul, preached submission to the Church, but you don't do that.
St. Paul's church was not your church. Your church claimed that St. Paul's church is their church because they believe that one ordained successor granted them authority to claim him. However what happened in his church is way different. I wonder... Did the church of St. Paul, really have a discos?
So if you are wondering "who I am to define".... I'll humor you with it.
I'm a guy that studies the writings of early Christians and looks at historical evidence very heavily. I mean I don't know how to answer a "who are you to question". Who are you but a guy given mod access on a simple machines forum? Who is John Doe, because he must be something special to actually think right?
We are all just people. Some of us accept what we read and are told. Some of us find our own ways. Some see a glass half full, some half empty. You believe the EO church has the authority to circumvent the very words of God, I believe the church does not. I believe that when God told us not to call any man master that you do not do it. You believe the church has the authority to let you call your bishops master, so you say "bless master" to your bishop. I believe this is wrong because God said not too. You believe it is right because the church does it. Please don't be irritated as you read this, it's true. Do you call your bishop master? What do you think about God telling you NOT to call any man master? The way I see it, it's not the church I stand before on judgment day.
As the scriptures command in Matthew "6:24" No one can serve two masters... Though it seems I "combine faiths", it is not the faiths themselves I combine. I embrace the original elements of the Master's church, Christianity. Though on my faith it shows that way, it's the only way I can simply explain it.
Unfortunately, you are the only one who believes that this is what you're doing. You have set yourself up as the authority on what is original and what is not, and you will allow no one, not even the Church, to dissuade you from your opinions. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy.
Brother, the church does not have authority because it is not the original Christian church. The documents & succession makes it look original (as it was claimed by the church) but it is not.
Consider as Christ had a simple Jewish styled last supper... Table & Christians.. God's example. "Do THIS in the remembrance of me".
What is involved in it today?
Table of Oblation
Prosfora (properly made, with stamp)
antimins or altar
better go to confession before you get it
better only be baptized by us and a member of our church or be turned away
Somehow I just don't know how I could allow the church to dissuade this "opinion", other than buying into "explanations" written by men calling other men master and venerating icons.
I love and respect the Original Christian elements of the Orthodox faith.
So you declare yourself the authority to mix and match whatever you deem true and discard the rest. It matters not what your acceptance criteria are. You have made yourself your own bishop, which is the ultimate show of hubris.
Why not discard something there is no historical record of the earliest Christians using? Authority has nothing to do with this. This is historical and backed with evidence (or lack thereof).
Women wearing head coverings, the belief the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.... I love and respect the Original Christian Elements of the Amish faith, only spending tithes on widows & orphans, head coverings, no costly array.
And yet you will submit to no authority outside yourself.
I submit to the authority and will of God and his words as recorded by those who witnessed him on Earth.
I submit to the traditions of the very Early Christians as best I can, in our modern society.
But you are right. I do not have a church. I can't find the church written about in the scriptures, or by the earliest Christians. It is very tough.
God bless brother.