OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 09:24:28 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My Journey as a "Born-Again" Christian (please help)  (Read 10070 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #45 on: April 22, 2009, 03:25:36 AM »

Quote from: lostandelirious
Shouldn't doctrine be based on the Bible rather than tradition? [...] I'm quite confused by this whole thing. . .

lostandelirious, these podcasts might be very helpful:
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/eastwest/scripture_and_tradition_part_1/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/eastwest/scripture_and_tradition_part_2_proof_texts/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/speaking_of_sola_scriptura_faith_alone/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/holy_tradition_and_holy_scripture/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_and_tradition_-_part_1/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_and_tradition_-_part_2/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_and_tradition_-_part_3/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_and_tradition_-_part_4/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_part_one/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_part_two/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_part_three/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_part_four/
- http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/sola_scriptura_and_philosophical_christianity_part_1/ (and other parts to be found here: http://ancientfaith.com/search/results/290b8e497ddd5c296d092da0a4b7757b/)

Quote from: lostandelirious
And I also believe that the Bible is God's perfect Word. . .

God's perfect Word is our Lord Jesus Christ. And we cannot say that the Bible is Christ or that Christ is the Bible.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #46 on: April 22, 2009, 03:33:07 AM »

it seems to me that the OP was addressing his questions to fellow Orthodox

But the thread was placed under the title Orthodox-Protestant Discussion. If posts from Protestants are not wanted, then the thread should surely be elsewhere? However, I shall intrude no more.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #47 on: April 22, 2009, 04:03:43 AM »

Quote from: lostandelirious
Shouldn't doctrine be based on the Bible rather than tradition?

The Orthodox doctrine is "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jud 1:3). This is the Holy Tradition. Although it was delivered once for all, in course of time it expressed itself in many different forms, which had different functions and different degrees of importance and validity. The Bible is the part of the Holy Tradition which has the most universal function and which is of the gratest importance and validity, but it still a part of the Tradition, not something separate. Other parts of the Tradition are not in contradiction with the Bible whatsoever. Moreover, there is nothing in them what cannot be traced - in one way or another - in the Bible.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 22, 2009, 07:41:12 AM »

I submit to you that insisting on Sola Scriptura denies any possible role for the Holy Spirit in providing revelations to the Body of Christ on His  if these Holy Traditions are to be on par with God Word, who defines what constitutes This "Holy Tradition"? What reason could you give me not to put Arius's writing on the same level as the NT and so on and so forth?

The Church decides. The Church has, actually, decided, what is Scripture and what is not - on the Council of Laodicea, between years 365 and 381 A.D. Before that decision was made, there had been to unanimous understanding whether, for example, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas were the true Word of God or not.
Logged

Love never fails.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 22, 2009, 07:47:25 AM »

1) There are SEVERAL churches that claim to be Christian (ex: Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc), is Orthodoxy not one of those?
No.

2)  2 Peter 1:20-21
     "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man,
      but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
 
     Psalm 12: 6
     "And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times."
Do you worship the Holy Trinity? Where does the term Holy Trinity occur in the Scriptures?

3) It's mere logic at this point, until I find verses that support this: Why would you go with the traditions of men over the Word of God? It makes NO sense.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
2 Thessalonians 2:15

I also believe that the Bible is God's perfect Word and our highest authority in doctrine and beliefs.
Then why don't you do what it says? I repeat:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
2 Thessalonians 2:15

See? The Scriptures ("epistles") are simply part of Tradition.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 07:55:55 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2009, 08:02:51 AM »

Just checking. Because I am neither Protestant nor Orthodox, is it ok if I'm in on this little debate about sola scriptura?
Fine with me, as long as the discussion stays on topic.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2009, 10:33:28 AM »

1) There are SEVERAL churches that claim to be Christian (ex: Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc), is Orthodoxy not one of those?
No.

Well said, OzGeorge! Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 566



« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2009, 03:52:21 PM »

Quote
And Alveus, I don't understand what it means to be Orthodox, you're right. But is it not a branch of Christianity, thusly a denomination?

Tradition is only necessary for worship. Isn't it a fundamental belief as a Christian to believe in the Bible as the true inerrant Word of God?  Why would we need to look anywhere else if it was? And I believe it is.

Shouldn't doctrine be based on the Bible rather than tradition?

And why would you use Biblical verses to try and back up iconography and the Theotokos if you said it wasn't necessarily accurate (whoever did).

I'm quite confused by this whole thing; I came here to learn about Orthodoxy, and now I'm more confused and unattracted to it.

Dear L&D,

I'm no expert but may be I can help. I am a former Protestant Christian with a primarily Baptist/Charismatic background. I recieved my BA from a Baptist college where I studied NT among other religious subjects. So perhaps I can address some of your concerns.

Denominations:  Were the Judaizers sent packing by the Apostles in the book of Acts another denomination of Christianity that had just a little different view on things?  Why was their perpective not just as good as that of the Apostles and elders of the Church? It is a question of authority to say what is or is not the faith. The decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was characterized as both the will of the Holy Spirit and of the Apostles. Throughout the centuries a number of similar councils have convened when some major erronious teaching was gaining ground.  The Christians of those times understood those decisions likewise to be the express will of the Holy Spirit for Christ's Church.  Those councils solidified Christian teaching on the Holy Trinity, the full Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Full Humanity of Christ as the God-Man among other things.  Do you accept these beliefs as true, as consistant with the Scriptures? If so then you have accepted the authority of these councils, that are the councils of the Church, that are the express voice and teaching of the Holy Spirit in those times and to all times that followed...or do you feel free to deny the Holy Trinity or the full Divinity and Humanity of Christ based on your own interpretations?  If those councils did express the will of God, then is it permissible to hold a faith other than what they held and still remain faithful as a Christian? Doesn't one automatically end up on the same side as the Judaizers if God's own Spirit given tools of governance are ignored as the "traditions of men?"

So if you look at the those faithful to the Apostles and those faithful to the Judaizers would you say then that there were two denominations of Chirstianity, or one church and one body of heretics?  Does 1500 years and 1000s of other divisions from that one original body change anything so that everyone is now a denomination and all theologially equal? No. I don't think so.

Tradition: You say it is only necessary for worship but not anything else because it is not fundamental to Christian belief? What is more fundamental to the Christian faith than her worship?  Do you not realize that the worship we have is not a human invention but is revealed from heaven?  Go back to the OT to where Moses recieved instruction on the building and ordering of the tabernacle, of the worship offered there. Wasn't the form and order of worship along with those anointed to serve the altars of the Lord something revealed by God...or was it just a teaching tool to be done away in time.  Look at the Prophets in their visions of God. Look at the Apocalypse of St. John. God is enthoned on an altar, antiphons of Holy Holy Holy flash back and forth between the living creatures, choirs of angels hymn and offer incense. Elder's fall prostrate, and at key times there is even an ordered silence. Does this remind you of anything? Our worship is worship precisely because it is modeled on, an iconic expression of, and a means of participation in the one and only worship there is in the whole of creation...that which occurs before Christ's throne. Our liturgy is an ascent to be united in the eternal liturgy of heaven. Moses didn't just invent his liturgy for the tabernacle, he witnessed it. So do we. Worship is very much foundational to the faith. What did Christ say to the Samaritan woman. "We know what we worship..." "The day is coming when you will neither worship in the temple or in the mountian but in Spirit and truth". Only the venue of worship is changed from earthly places to heavenly ones, it's character and importance do not. 

Now consider that for all the detail included in the OT accounts of their worship, or the many indications in the NT of Christian worship, where are the step by step details that tell us how to worship? They are not written down in the Scriptures. Rather they were and are passed from generation to generation...the paradosis, the handing down, the Tradition. You could not worship at all and have any confidence that your worship was God pleasing were it not for the Tradition of Christian worship which is rooted in God's own revelation of what His worship is.

The Bible and Tradition. You ask why we need to turn to anything but the Bible. But what does the Bible say? Hear St. Paul speaking to the Thessalonians,"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."  Consider what the Tradition is to St. Paul. It is not something seperate from what is written, but rather it includes it.  The Church learns from St. Paul that we are guided by the Tradition. That tradition has both written and unwritten elements and they illumine each other. Consider who is to recieve the tradition both written and unwritten. Is it not the Church. Is not the Church then the proper context in which to encounter, understand, and apply the Scriptures? Is the Church without Spirit given teachers to rightly divide the Scriptures thoughout all her history? Or did her teacher's vanish with the Apostles? If we would then be faithful to Christ in His Church how can we do so without being faithful to the concensus of those teachers He has provided age to age and perfer our own readings or those readings championed by those who stand outside the Tradition and who teach at variance to it?  The Bible is part of the Tradition, the head of its written part, but not the only part. We have apostolic command to keep both the written and the unwritten together. Either alone is insufficient, not whole.

Innerancy: Why must the Bible be inerrant as we calculate such things? How can it even matter whether it is innerrent or not if we, the readers are not inerrant in our interpretation?  If we cannot be sure we rightly understand the Scriptures as we read them (and we should read them), then how can we know if our interpretations/applications are right or drifting into perhaps soul damning error?  The Bible does have an answer. Consider St. Paul again speaking to his spiritual son Timothy: "1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

What does the Apostle Paul call the Church? Does he not identify it as the very pillar and gound of all truth, its very foundations we might say? And given that the Church is the Body of Christ who is Head, and Christ is Himself the Truth, then such a statement makes sense.  If you want the innerant truth about Christ, about how to understand and apply the teachings of Scripture then you don't turn to yourself, nor to any individual man, rather we are directed to the Church as the very foundations of truth. Trust the teachings of the Church.  Look now at the end of the Apocalypse of St. John. Who is that sitting enthroned. Who is that who speaks with the very same voice as the Spirit of God?  What does the passage say? "The Spirit and the Bride say come."  Who is the Bride? Is she the Church or not? Does this passage echo the conciliar passage of Acts 15, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." You bet it does.  So if your belief and teaching differ from that of the councils of the Church which speak with the voice of the Spirit, then how can one also be part of the Bride who likewise speaks the same thing as the Spirit?

How can you say you obey the Scriptures when in denying the authority of the Church, and the teaching of the Church, and the Tradition of the Church which are all expressly commended to us in those very same Scriptures.

Do not make the mistake of confusing the falible traditions of men with the Tradition, which is the Tradition of God.

Icons and Iconography: These things are part of the sacred history of the Church. They have solid anticedents in the Tabernacle of Moses and in the Temple.  Go to the OT and look at the relevant passages.  Just a few verses after the 10 commandments are given, the first of which is to worship only God and not make images of anything in heaven or earth to worship them, God gives instruction on the appointments of the tablernacle. It includes a lampstands shaped like an almond tree, images of angels woven into the curtains of the temple and two angels placed over the mercy seat. Soloman had images of bulls put under the Sea, and he had the four faces of the Cherubim placed on the side of the carts used to serve the altar...and God's glory so filled that temple the priests could not stand to minister. Apparently those images didn't cause him any problem. 

Consider that according to the Tradition, the first painter of icons in the Church was St. Luke who wrote 2 books of the NT. If his writings are treasured in the Church why not his art?  The Blessed Theotokos even said his work would be blessed by her Son. Then there is the tradition concerning the image Christ made of Himself on a towel for king Agbar of Edessa? Consider also that the making of funerary portraits were part of the burial customs of Egypt and Palestine in the era of the  Apostles and thereafter. Just as the relics of the martyrs and holy ones were brought into the Church for veneration so were their images. The image identified the particular remains/relics. In time a particular churchly style of painting and labeling such images developed, but they have always been present as part of our veneration of saints who lived God pleasing lives and so often in that time offered them up as a willing sacrifice.

These things are testimony to the incarnation...that Christ really came, could be seen, touched, died and rose again and who will come again. They are testimony to the power of tranformation and transfiguration of the faithful by the Spirit in the service of and after the image and likeness of Christ. They are in line and colour for us what the Scriptures are in ink and paper. Same message, different mediums. One and the same Spirit in all.

I hope this is of some small usefulness. Forgive me.




« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 03:57:41 PM by Seraphim98 » Logged
lostandelirious
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 6


« Reply #53 on: April 22, 2009, 07:20:38 PM »

I find this all to be extremely confusing and overwhelming, this is NOT what I wanted at all, and I don't at all appreciate some of the rudeness and arrogance some people here have.

I'm just not gonna come back, this makes my head hurt. I'll just tackle the issues on my own; read the Bible, talk to my priest. Unfortunately I lack strong religious people in my life, but I'll just have to make do.

I'll keep you posted on this journey, but I need a break, this is alot...
Logged
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #54 on: April 22, 2009, 08:54:20 PM »

lostanddelirious: I'm sorry you're going through this difficult time and I pray you will be led to someone who can gently and kindly answer your questions and set your doubts at ease, so to speak. It is so normal, and even healthy, to ask questions-even to doubt at times. I know, because I've been there too and am there right now.

I'm sorry to hear you've been overwhelmed by the replies. I'm sure everyone meant well and their replies might have seemed rude and arrogant, but likely everyone was so anxious for you to be in the safety of the fold, that they came across in the opposite way they intended. I know, because I've been hurt by zealous people who actually it turned out, loved me and were afraid of where I was heading. Also, when I am hurt, I need to realize that I too have very annoying moments of ponification which can be more than hurtful to others. sigh. We are all so weak, so sinful, despite our best intentions.

I wonder if you could tell us then, please, what is it that you wanted to hear? Maybe it would help to know how you feel about this.

Best wishes on your journey!
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #55 on: April 22, 2009, 09:31:51 PM »

Indeed!  May God grant you peace and guidance; we only wish the best to you!
Logged
Byzantine2008
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 280



« Reply #56 on: April 22, 2009, 10:03:04 PM »

1) There are SEVERAL churches that claim to be Christian (ex: Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc), is Orthodoxy not one of those?

2)  2 Peter 1:20-21
     "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man,
      but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
 
     Psalm 12: 6
     "And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times."

3) It's mere logic at this point, until I find verses that support this: Why would you go with the traditions of men over the Word of God? It makes NO sense.

4) The verses you gave me for iconography and the Theotokos explained nothing, or just confused me, as did some of the verses I read that discussed Holy Tradition. I'm not concrete in my beliefs other than that I believe in Jesus Christ, Son of God our Lord who died to save us; we cannot gain salvation through works but only grace through faith. And I also believe that the Bible is God's perfect Word and our highest authority in doctrine and beliefs. I'm still trying to grow in my faith, figuring out what's the best for me.




I smell a troll in here......

 Roll Eyes
Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!
Byzantine2008
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 280



« Reply #57 on: April 22, 2009, 10:07:46 PM »

I find this all to be extremely confusing and overwhelming, this is NOT what I wanted at all, and I don't at all appreciate some of the rudeness and arrogance some people here have.

I'm just not gonna come back, this makes my head hurt. I'll just tackle the issues on my own; read the Bible, talk to my priest. Unfortunately I lack strong religious people in my life, but I'll just have to make do.

I'll keep you posted on this journey, but I need a break, this is alot...

How old are you???

I don't understand when you threaten not to come back??? Inevitably it will be your loss!

BTW no matter who we are, we all need guidance so take up your own advise and speak to your priest....

Lord Have Mercy
Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2009, 01:42:11 AM »

1) There are SEVERAL churches that claim to be Christian (ex: Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc), is Orthodoxy not one of those?

2)  2 Peter 1:20-21
     "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man,
      but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
 
     Psalm 12: 6
     "And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times."

3) It's mere logic at this point, until I find verses that support this: Why would you go with the traditions of men over the Word of God? It makes NO sense.

4) The verses you gave me for iconography and the Theotokos explained nothing, or just confused me, as did some of the verses I read that discussed Holy Tradition. I'm not concrete in my beliefs other than that I believe in Jesus Christ, Son of God our Lord who died to save us; we cannot gain salvation through works but only grace through faith. And I also believe that the Bible is God's perfect Word and our highest authority in doctrine and beliefs. I'm still trying to grow in my faith, figuring out what's the best for me.




I smell a troll in here......

 Roll Eyes
Seriously!  Is this necessary?
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,703



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 25, 2010, 01:54:50 AM »

PETERTHEALEUT,

You quoted 1 Corinthians 15:3-11:
Quote
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

When Paul writes: "he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures," does Paul mean that the scriptures specifically indicate that the Messiah would rise on the third day? Jesus says that the only miracle he would show the world was the same one Jonah did, which He calls "the sign of Jonah." Jesus prophesied that like Jonah he would be 3 days and nights in the tomb.

If my parents tell me to go to the store and buy a lawn mower without specifying a time, can I say "I went to the store and bought a mower the next day in accordance with their instructions?"

Likewise, if the Old Testament prophesied in Isaiah that the Messiah would rise without naming 3 days in particular, (and Jesus himself prophesied that he would show people the same miracle as Jonah), is that enough for me to agree  "he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures."
« Last Edit: March 25, 2010, 01:57:12 AM by rakovsky » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #60 on: March 25, 2010, 01:34:31 PM »

PETERTHEALEUT,

You quoted 1 Corinthians 15:3-11:
Quote
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

When Paul writes: "he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures," does Paul mean that the scriptures specifically indicate that the Messiah would rise on the third day? Jesus says that the only miracle he would show the world was the same one Jonah did, which He calls "the sign of Jonah." Jesus prophesied that like Jonah he would be 3 days and nights in the tomb.

If my parents tell me to go to the store and buy a lawn mower without specifying a time, can I say "I went to the store and bought a mower the next day in accordance with their instructions?"

Likewise, if the Old Testament prophesied in Isaiah that the Messiah would rise without naming 3 days in particular, (and Jesus himself prophesied that he would show people the same miracle as Jonah), is that enough for me to agree  "he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures."
I kinda think you may be so hung up on the "third day" detail that you've been rendered unable to see that maybe St. Paul was focused on alluding to the Scriptures that indicated that Jesus would rise from the dead.  ISTM that this is what St. Paul wanted to preach in this passage, that Jesus had risen from the dead, NOT that he had risen from the dead on the third day as opposed to, let's say, the second day or the fourth day.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2010, 01:37:47 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2010, 04:09:07 PM »

So the Bible was inspired by the Church, not the Bible inspired the Church?

And the Epistles were written as early as the late AD 40s, the fact that the Bible was put together 300 years after the fact means nothing (if it was).

I'm sorry, but I COMPLETELY disagree. Tradition should not dictate our doctrine, rather God's Word. God's Word is our sole authority. Tradition is only relevant in how we worship.



I do not believe that anyone here is saying that tradition dictates our doctrine. What we believe is that the Word of God is best understood in the Church because (a) before it was written, the Word was proclaimed orally and passed on from one generation to another; (b) The Church, prayerfully and with the help of the Holy Spirit, selected those books that we now now as the New Testament based largely on the books' conformity to what was passed on from one generation to another; and (c) Through our ecclesiastical structure and Apostolic Succession, the Church ensures continuity in the correct beliefs/interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. Our church is Bible-based, Christ-centered, Trinitarian, guided by the Holy Spirit, and simply a mostly unchanged version of the earliest church.

I think it may be problematic to radically differentiate between doctrine and worship. We believe that true theologians, for example, are first and foremost learned folks who pray. Think about it for a second (and read C.S. Lewis if you have not already): This is about faith, about our relationship with God and each other.  Worhsip is the overarching activity--doctrine is nothing more than boundaries that the Church has set up to keep us from wandering from the true path.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,703



WWW
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2010, 12:14:54 AM »

PETERTHEALEUT,

You quoted 1 Corinthians 15:3-11:
Quote
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

When Paul writes: "he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures," does Paul mean that the scriptures specifically indicate that the Messiah would rise on the third day? Jesus says that the only miracle he would show the world was the same one Jonah did, which He calls "the sign of Jonah." Jesus prophesied that like Jonah he would be 3 days and nights in the tomb.

If my parents tell me to go to the store and buy a lawn mower without specifying a time, can I say "I went to the store and bought a mower the next day in accordance with their instructions?"

Likewise, if the Old Testament prophesied in Isaiah that the Messiah would rise without naming 3 days in particular, (and Jesus himself prophesied that he would show people the same miracle as Jonah), is that enough for me to agree  "he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures."
I kinda think you may be so hung up on the "third day" detail that you've been rendered unable to see that maybe St. Paul was focused on alluding to the Scriptures that indicated that Jesus would rise from the dead.  ISTM that this is what St. Paul wanted to preach in this passage, that Jesus had risen from the dead, NOT that he had risen from the dead on the third day as opposed to, let's say, the second day or the fourth day.

Peter the Aleut,

I completely prefer your interpretation of the phrase, and believe your view is grammatically correct. It was a big issue for me when I was writing my article about it (ie. on rakovskii.livejournal.com). I was really "hung up on the "third day" detail" like you said.

You are right that "maybe St. Paul was focused on alluding to the Scriptures that indicated that Jesus would rise from the dead."

I don't know what "ISTM" means. But I have some doubt about the second part of your statement that "that this is what St. Paul wanted to preach in this passage, that Jesus had risen from the dead, NOT that he had risen from the dead on the third day as opposed to, let's say, the second day or the fourth day."

I doubt it, because he specifies the phrase "third day" when mentioning in Corinthians what he sees as the main parts of Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection that he focuses on preaching. If it wasn't important, I think he probably wouldn't have mentioned it.

On the other hand, I think you are right that the main idea seems to be focusing on His death and resurrection, with the third day detail being of significantly lesser importance.

By the way, I wish to add that your discussion to me, and the discussion on OC.net is special to me. It seems that in everyday life I don't talk alot about the scriptures and our faith.

Happy Nativity, Peter.
Logged
Tags: sola scriptura Canon of scriptures Theotokos icons Tradition 
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.105 seconds with 46 queries.