OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 12:58:57 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 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Can and should I be baptized again?  (Read 9670 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #180 on: August 29, 2010, 08:11:41 AM »

If our Brother Theophilos 78 ,Doesn't Like The word Allah and feels uncomforable about it  ,it's his right not to use it......We serbs don't use the word ,neither do the russian,romainians,bulgarians,polish, macidonians,belo russians....georgians....So many orthodox to chose from that don't use it.im sure there others...Some Of them May even rebaptize you ...try the serbs we don't mind  washing  the allah off in Holy Baptisim....  Grin
In other words, the ones who don't use the word "Allah" are the ones who don't speak Arabic. Roll Eyes

I sometimes pray in Arabic, but avoid using the word Allah. Wink
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #181 on: August 29, 2010, 08:41:45 AM »

Pray that God won't avoid you because of reciprocity.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #182 on: August 29, 2010, 09:15:59 AM »

Pray that God won't avoid you because of reciprocity.

If that is the case, no prayer will be accepted because of the paradox.  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #183 on: August 29, 2010, 12:21:56 PM »

Ahh, thrust a stereotype into the conversation to try and win points.  Old trick, old result - no dice.  I've seen fonts designed by parishioners, crafted with their own hands; no one said anything about having gold, silver, platinum, marble, etc. fonts.
Again, parishioners with the time, skill, and resources to do this are not in every parish. 

That is true, and no potential member of the Body of Christ should be penalized for that.

I agree. He should not be penalized with an uncanonical baptism by pouring.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #184 on: August 29, 2010, 06:15:50 PM »

Logos means WORD in Greek. It is a concept rather than a personal name.

Not just a concept. The Logos has been understood to be hypostatic, meaning a substantial being, both in Platonism and in Christianity.

Logos is not a personal name of our deity.

Nor is "Son". But nonetheless it is clear that both refer to the divine hypostasis of the Lord Jesus Christ, and also originally referred to a member of the Platonist Triad.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #185 on: August 29, 2010, 06:15:50 PM »


No, I'm not. That is a total red herring. I was pointing out that Arabic Christians could not have possibly gotten "Allah" from Islam, because when they first started using the word Islam did not even exist.

Where did Muslims get the name Allah from then? Allah was the moon god of the Meccan paganism. It is so simple.

Suggested reading:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/moonotheism.htm

Meccan Pagans first used the term "Allah", meaning "the god", to refer to their god. Muslims also used the term to refer to their own god, and at that in a more monotheistic sense. Arabic Christians used the term "Allah" in the same sense to refer to "the god". Just because Muslims continued to use the same term to refer to god as the Pagan religion they came out of doesn't necessarily mean that the deity they were worshiping was the same as the Pagans.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #186 on: August 29, 2010, 06:15:50 PM »


Cannot be true?

Well, it is true.

There is historical evidence to show this.

Arabic Christians were calling God "Allah" before Islam even existed.

If you're not willing to believe that, then that is to your own detriment.

Detriment? What kind of harm could my disbelief in the moon god cause?  Grin

You're not being rational. Just because all three groups used the same term to refer to their own deities doesn't necessarily mean that they were worshiping the same deity.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #187 on: August 29, 2010, 06:15:50 PM »

it's his right not to use it

Given that it has lead him to deny his baptism in a canonical jurisdiction of your communion, it's significantly more problematic than you are giving it credit.

We serbs don't use the word neither do the russian,romainians,bulgarians,polish, macidonians,belo russians....georgians....

No duh you don't. None of you use Arabic. "Allah" is an Arabic word.

Some Of them May even rebaptize you ...try the serbs we don't mind  washing  the allah off in Holy Baptisim....  Grin

I've never heard of one canonical jurisdiction of a communion rebaptizing a person who was baptized in another canonical jurisdiction of the same communion. That just sounds absurd.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #188 on: August 29, 2010, 07:11:47 PM »


Not just a concept. The Logos has been understood to be hypostatic, meaning a substantial being, both in Platonism and in Christianity.

Again, a "substantial being", but not a personal name.

Nor is "Son". But nonetheless it is clear that both refer to the divine hypostasis of the Lord Jesus Christ, and also originally referred to a member of the Platonist Triad.

This is red herring. We are not discussing the meaning of the words Logos or Son here, but the usage of Allah as a personal name.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #189 on: August 29, 2010, 07:19:52 PM »


Meccan Pagans first used the term "Allah", meaning "the god", to refer to their god.

Your evidence?

Meccan pagans, like all the other pagans, assigned a proper noun to each of their deities so as to distinguish one god from another. It is not reasonable to say that polytheists called one of their many gods "the God".

What about the word Allat? What did it mean? The goddess? NO! It was a proper noun given to one of the female gods/idols of the Meccan pantheon.

Muslims also used the term to refer to their own god, and at that in a more monotheistic sense. Arabic Christians used the term "Allah" in the same sense to refer to "the god". Just because Muslims continued to use the same term to refer to god as the Pagan religion they came out of doesn't necessarily mean that the deity they were worshiping was the same as the Pagans.

Muslims use the term as the foremost personal name of their god. The Qur'an treats the word Allah as a personal name too. Why is that? Could it be because Mohammad knew he adopted the word from Meccan pagans, he himself being one of them?
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #190 on: August 29, 2010, 07:20:46 PM »

Friends, what we have here is a case of "invincible ignorance." Introducing facts or logical arguments is a waste of time here; Theophilos will just have to overcome his hang-ups over Islam by himself. I'll just say, Theophilos, that if you honestly believe that the Arabs in the Orthodox church pray to a pagan moon god, then the Orthodox Church is in communion with a bunch of pagans and we are therefore a pagan church. 
« Last Edit: August 29, 2010, 07:22:00 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #191 on: August 29, 2010, 07:21:49 PM »

You're not being rational. Just because all three groups used the same term to refer to their own deities doesn't necessarily mean that they were worshiping the same deity.

Here comes a question for you:

Can I use the word Amon-Ra while referring to the Holy Trinity in the Church? Is this possible? Please answer my question.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #192 on: August 29, 2010, 07:23:24 PM »

Friends, what we have here is a case of "invincible ignorance." Introducing facts or logical arguments is a waste of time here; Theophilos will just have to overcome his hang-ups over Islam by himself. I'll just say, Theophilos, that if you honestly believe that the Arabs in the Orthodox church pray to a pagan moon god, then the Orthodox Church is in communion with a bunch of pagans and we are therefore a pagan church. 

What an academic concession of defeat!  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #193 on: August 29, 2010, 07:38:24 PM »

Have you expressed your views to your priest? I think he will tell you that you will have to overcome this stumbling block. I would not be surprised if he took corrective action if you continue in your folly.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #194 on: August 29, 2010, 07:48:07 PM »

it's his right not to use it

Given that it has lead him to deny his baptism in a canonical jurisdiction of your communion, it's significantly more problematic than you are giving it credit.

We serbs don't use the word neither do the russian,romainians,bulgarians,polish, macidonians,belo russians....georgians....

No duh you don't. None of you use Arabic. "Allah" is an Arabic word.

Some Of them May even rebaptize you ...try the serbs we don't mind  washing  the allah off in Holy Baptisim....  Grin

I've never heard of one canonical jurisdiction of a communion rebaptizing a person who was baptized in another canonical jurisdiction of the same communion. That just sounds absurd.

It's to Late To Bring Anything Up ,I repented asked  Fr. Ambrose For Absolution In Forgivness,,,,For Leading In Ignorance some One Astray....Be a little Humble Yourself it works wonders.... Instead of trying to get the last  word in all the time....... Grin
« Last Edit: August 29, 2010, 08:10:42 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #195 on: August 29, 2010, 08:15:16 PM »


Not just a concept. The Logos has been understood to be hypostatic, meaning a substantial being, both in Platonism and in Christianity.

Again, a "substantial being", but not a personal name.

Nor is "Son". But nonetheless it is clear that both refer to the divine hypostasis of the Lord Jesus Christ, and also originally referred to a member of the Platonist Triad.

This is red herring. We are not discussing the meaning of the words Logos or Son here, but the usage of Allah as a personal name.

So the fact that God the Son is identified with a Platonist concept, even one that was understood as a substantial being, doesn't bother you at all?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #196 on: August 29, 2010, 08:15:16 PM »


Meccan Pagans first used the term "Allah", meaning "the god", to refer to their god.

Your evidence?

Meccan pagans, like all the other pagans, assigned a proper noun to each of their deities so as to distinguish one god from another. It is not reasonable to say that polytheists called one of their many gods "the God".

What about the word Allat? What did it mean? The goddess? NO! It was a proper noun given to one of the female gods/idols of the Meccan pantheon.

Muslims also used the term to refer to their own god, and at that in a more monotheistic sense. Arabic Christians used the term "Allah" in the same sense to refer to "the god". Just because Muslims continued to use the same term to refer to god as the Pagan religion they came out of doesn't necessarily mean that the deity they were worshiping was the same as the Pagans.

Muslims use the term as the foremost personal name of their god. The Qur'an treats the word Allah as a personal name too. Why is that? Could it be because Mohammad knew he adopted the word from Meccan pagans, he himself being one of them?

1. I don't personally care all that much about whether Islam is a carryover from Paganism. I don't think that's entirely relevant to Arabic Christianity. Perhaps Muhammad could have founded a new religion on the basis of the worship of a Pagan deity. However, I don't see how Christians could possibly have done that. How and why would converts to Christianity, a religion that had already clearly distinguished itself from Paganism, use the name of a Pagan deity to worship a god that is already expected to not be Pagan? That just doesn't make sense.

2. The personal name of the Arabic moon-god, who was the primary deity of Mecca, appears to actually have been Hubal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubal  Undecided
So no, you're acting as if "Allah" was the name that the Arabs used to refer to their moon-god. In fact it was Hubal. Allah is the name only of the deity typically ascribed to Islam. Any association of the two is based merely off of one archaeological site ascribed to Allah in which this one speculates it was actually Hubal.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #197 on: August 29, 2010, 08:15:16 PM »

You're not being rational. Just because all three groups used the same term to refer to their own deities doesn't necessarily mean that they were worshiping the same deity.

Here comes a question for you:

Can I use the word Amon-Ra while referring to the Holy Trinity in the Church? Is this possible? Please answer my question.

No.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #198 on: August 29, 2010, 08:16:00 PM »

What makes the idea even more preposterous is the fact that there was an idol to Hubal in the Kabba and Muhammad, the man you claim worshiped Hubal, actually personally destroyed the idol of Hubal.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #199 on: August 29, 2010, 10:16:41 PM »

"I insist that we not use the word Allah because now, after Islam, it is an Islamic term pertaining to Mohammad's false god adopted from Meccan paganism."

I have some very unfortunate news for you.  I just founded a new religion, we would be considered pagans by you.  We incorporate Christ, God, Jesus, Trinity, and all other Christian terms as personal names for God.  I suppose you should be coming up with a new word all your own now, huh?  By the way, we also have baptism, a liturgy, saints, and whatever other Christian things you can think of - I suppose you should drop them to.  We also revere Mary and the Apostles and St. John the Forerunner, I suppose you should discard them as well.

And to whomever it was that said God speaks German...I feel so very sorry for you.  God clearly speaks only English - how else did he tell King Henry VIII to make himself the Pope? j/k



Gratuitous political comment removed from post.  Please save your political commentary for the Politics board.  If you don't yet have access to the Politics board, please send Fr. Chris a private message to request this access.  Thank you.  -PtA
« Last Edit: August 29, 2010, 10:36:25 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #200 on: August 30, 2010, 02:52:09 AM »

Have you expressed your views to your priest? I think he will tell you that you will have to overcome this stumbling block. I would not be surprised if he took corrective action if you continue in your folly.

If he really attempted to "correct" me because of my supposed "folly", I would consider being an unchurched Christian.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #201 on: August 30, 2010, 02:54:29 AM »


2. The personal name of the Arabic moon-god, who was the primary deity of Mecca, appears to actually have been Hubal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubal  Undecided
So no, you're acting as if "Allah" was the name that the Arabs used to refer to their moon-god. In fact it was Hubal. Allah is the name only of the deity typically ascribed to Islam. Any association of the two is based merely off of one archaeological site ascribed to Allah in which this one speculates it was actually Hubal.

Hubal was the equivalent of Baal in Mecca. Allah, on the other hand, was the name of another deity Meccan pagans worshipped.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #202 on: August 30, 2010, 03:00:20 AM »

What makes the idea even more preposterous is the fact that there was an idol to Hubal in the Kabba and Muhammad, the man you claim worshiped Hubal, actually personally destroyed the idol of Hubal.

Mohammad did worship Hubal before making himself a prophet. He was born to pagan parents in a pagan tribe. He eventually destroyed all the idols, but kept the Cube and his Allah.  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #203 on: August 30, 2010, 03:02:47 AM »

"I insist that we not use the word Allah because now, after Islam, it is an Islamic term pertaining to Mohammad's false god adopted from Meccan paganism."

I have some very unfortunate news for you.  I just founded a new religion, we would be considered pagans by you.  We incorporate Christ, God, Jesus, Trinity, and all other Christian terms as personal names for God.  I suppose you should be coming up with a new word all your own now, huh?  By the way, we also have baptism, a liturgy, saints, and whatever other Christian things you can think of - I suppose you should drop them to.  We also revere Mary and the Apostles and St. John the Forerunner, I suppose you should discard them as well.


Why? What do all these have to do with my objection to the use of a word that belonged to a pagan deity?
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #204 on: August 30, 2010, 03:03:40 AM »


No.

Why is that? Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,924



« Reply #205 on: August 30, 2010, 03:31:33 AM »

Theophilos,

I am sorry but "Allah" is not a proprer name, but simply "ilah" with article, and I do feel you being utterly disrespectful towards the Arabic-speaking believers and jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #206 on: August 30, 2010, 04:19:47 AM »

"I insist that we not use the word Allah because now, after Islam, it is an Islamic term pertaining to Mohammad's false god adopted from Meccan paganism."

I have some very unfortunate news for you.  I just founded a new religion, we would be considered pagans by you.  We incorporate Christ, God, Jesus, Trinity, and all other Christian terms as personal names for God.  I suppose you should be coming up with a new word all your own now, huh?  By the way, we also have baptism, a liturgy, saints, and whatever other Christian things you can think of - I suppose you should drop them to.  We also revere Mary and the Apostles and St. John the Forerunner, I suppose you should discard them as well.


Why? What do all these have to do with my objection to the use of a word that belonged to a pagan deity?

Unless you believe said pagan deity really is a living deity, it should matter.  You said that it didn't matter that Arab Christians were using Allah to refer to God, before the Muslims ever existed, because Muslims now use Allah and therefore Orthodox should not.  Consequently, if someone comes along now and uses the name of Jesus in their paganism, you should likewise object to the usage of the name Jesus by Orthodox.

Also, if you would become unchurched because a Priest tries to correct you, I think you have some deeper issues.  Don't you think it strange that no Saints of the Orthodox Church have ever come out against the use of Allah?  Don't you think the fact that you believe yourself wiser than a millennium of Saints of your own church, is a serious problem?

Furthermore, how would you know whether or not Muhammad worshiped Hubal?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #207 on: August 30, 2010, 09:07:35 AM »


Anyway, as Orthodox Christians, it is essential that we trust the tradition of the church.

I hope the Orthodox tradition does not stipulate that we pray to Allah in our liturgies. Wink

So far I have come across no Church father that said: "Allah is the same as Adonai YHWH" or "Allah means the God in Arabic, so there is nothing wrong with using that name in our Church".

Theodore of Qurah, the disciple of St. John of Damascus, the first major Arabic Father (previous Arab Fathers, like St. John of Damascus, wrote in Greek, and all the Arab Fathers after him.  He uses Allah all the time as it is the Arabic word for "God" (the definite article functions in Arabic as capitalization, which we do not have in Arabic), predating Muhammad for generations, the cognate of all Semitic languages word for God.

One of those cognates, 'el, is used throughout in the Hebrew Bible for God all over the place, although it is also the name of a Canaanite deity:


Cf. Eli, Eli, lama sabakhthani. Good enough for Jesus, good enough for me.

St. Ephraim the Syrian and all the Syriac Fathers. He says "alaha" (-a is the Aramaic definite article, equivalent to the al- of Arabic). Aramaic alaha would influence Arabic Christian usage, as elsewhere (the words for prayer, fasting, etc in even the Quran (another borrowing from Syriac: its the word for "Lectionary") are Aramaic/Syriac loans).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #208 on: August 30, 2010, 09:20:02 AM »



It's already been demonstrated again and again that "Allah" is not the name of a pagan deity.

No, I have not seen that yet. The only thing I have been told over and over is that the word Allah means the God in Arabic, but no evidence for that speculation has shown up.  Roll Eyes

Once again, the words "God" and "Theos" were also one time used for pagan deities.


Now pagan deities are extinct and not invoked except the false god of Meccan paganism.

Your example is not relevant to our discussion because I have already proven that Allah does not mean God in Arabic. The equivalent of the English word "GOD" is "ILAH", not Allah.  Wink

No, ilah means 'god', not "God." The difference is like saying "the god Zeus' ("deus" god btw), and "the God Zeus," just stronger as we would say for the former al-ilah 'ziyuus'. "allah 'ziyuus' is just plain blasphemous.

Quote
Once again: The Nicene creed reads "true God from true God" in English and "ILAH haq min ILAH haq" in Arabic. I cannot see the word Allah in that line. Why is that?  Roll Eyes

Arabic grammar. It's the same reason why "my God" is "ilaahii" and not "allaahiii" Since the clause is speaking of God as a substance/essence, the indefinite is required. The distinction between definite and indefinite, not observed IIRC in Turkish not Serbian/Bosnian, is fundamental in Arabic grammar.  The same reason why it is "nuur min nuur" light from light, and not "al-nuur min al-nuur."

It's frustrating that you continue to ignore these simple facts.

I have no facts to ignore, but only assumptions.

LOL. Nothing is assumed in Arabic grammar.  We even have rules on how to say "uh, uh, uh" while you collect your thoughts.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #209 on: August 30, 2010, 11:01:45 AM »

Pozdrav Brate....
If theres a Russian orthodox Church
there, have them do the full immersion
 of holy baptism, if the Greeks won't do it.... Grin
No, the Russians will not do it, nor the monks on Athos: they only do it for those baptized by heretics, not canonical Orthodox priests.
St. Constantine the Holy Emperor and many other saints were baptized by pouring. Again, not ideal, but not void either.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #210 on: August 30, 2010, 11:07:59 AM »

This question has been bothering me for a while.  Sad

As a former Muslim, I was baptized in the Orthodox Church in 1997, but there was no immersion (Only through pouring water). More, the language of the parish was Arabic, and the priest baptized me in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, he used the word Allah throughout the ritual of baptism, which makes me doubt the validity of my baptism now since I believe Allah to be the name of a false god and an idol worshipped by Meccan pagans prior to Islam/Mohammad. Some Christians say Allah does not exist and is a false deity (the moon god of the Meccans). Would it therefore be possible to repeat my baptism in Greek or include the names Elohim YHWH into the ritual even if I can be baptized a second time in the Arabic Church through immersion? (I mean can the priest replace the word Allah with Elohim or YHWH while giving me the sacrament?)

Thanks for the answers.



Given that you were actually Baptized in the Orthodox Church, I would be inclined to advise against it.  This is different than if you were just Chrismated.
Since he was Muslim, he could not just be chrismated (even if he were say Prostestant, where these ideas on Allah are coming from, it would still be problematic). And it is not a matter of advice but dogma "I believe in One Baptism for the remission of sins." That is the Faith the Church baptizes us into.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #211 on: August 30, 2010, 12:34:30 PM »

If Holy Orthodoxy condemns or did in the past and some do in the present, condemn Catholics from  sprinkling ,how can we justify using it....This Is Confusing .....Is It a Change introduced by the ecumenists....... Huh

No, no. I think this way is allowed for in the Didache, but correct me if I'm wrong.

No, you are correct.
Quote
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

I'll also add, since Theophilos was baptized, as he has described it, by a priest entrusted by the bishop in the Holy Synod of Antioch, St. Ignatius says to the Church of Smyrna (Cool (which IIRC, is where Theophilos now worships):
Quote
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Your baptism is secure and valid.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #212 on: August 30, 2010, 12:41:52 PM »

Do these parishes not have rivers around them?

Better question: are the rivers clean?

Can they not invest in a cheap rubber horse trough until they can afford a properly gold-guilded opulent baptistry?  Wink

Really, that's your solution?  Bring a horse trough in?  Please tell me that is a joke.  You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

Seriously though, I would assume that perhaps pouring is necessary in more arid regions, or in the winter when local bodies of water are frozen, but the idea that a parish has to pour out of necessity because they "only have a font for babies" seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I guess it's a good thing you're not in a position to make decisions about baptisms, then, since a real problem seems "ridiculous" to you.  Every parish should have an adult font; I've seen some with large above-ground fonts, and a few with walk-in fonts.  But not every parish has one (especially since 95%+ of baptisms are performed on children), so the issue of "what to do with an adult baptism" becomes a real and serious question, not one to be confronted with dirty streams and horse troughs.
A nice solution I've seen here is that a more well parish or two build in a full size font for aduts (btw, there are building codes to worry about), and let other parishes use the facilities as needed.  Btw, we have baptzied plenty in horse troughs. We have two coming up next month, IIRC.

As for baptizing in the Chicago river, we have a combination baptism-funeral service for that. Ykh! Shocked
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #213 on: August 30, 2010, 12:59:17 PM »

As for baptizing in the Chicago river, we have a combination baptism-funeral service for that. Ykh! Shocked

Isn't it nice how we are destroying our world?
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,924



« Reply #214 on: August 30, 2010, 01:00:52 PM »

to the Church of Smyrna (Cool (which IIRC, is where Theophilos now worships)

Is there an active Orthodox parish in Smyrna/Izmir now? It seemed to me that the last one had ended its activities in 1923... but then again, there are lots of Russians there now, so it might be one of the cities where the MP lends priests to the EP for ministering to them?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #215 on: August 30, 2010, 01:02:33 PM »

Would it therefore be possible to repeat my baptism in Greek or include the names Elohim YHWH into the ritual even if I can be baptized a second time in the Arabic Church through immersion?

No. Any priest or bishop that did so would be deposed, according to Apostolic Canon 47.

Your Baptism was performed within and accepted by the Holy Orthodox Church. Period.  You have also been sealed by Holy Chrism and are a communicant of the Holy Eucharist. You are an Orthodox Christian. Period. Full stop. There can be no further question.

Any doubts to the contrary are temptations from the devil, distracting you from the real work of salvation.

AMEN! I further add, I would wonder if questioning a valid Orthodox baptism would not be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which sanctifies it.

Quote
If you need further encouragement about the acceptability of your baptism, just read Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canon 95 of Trullo. According to these holy canons, even the baptisms of Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites are acceptable to the Church. How could yours, performed by a canonical Orthodox priest, with the blessing of a canonical Orthodox bishop, not be?

for the uber-akriveia, from the Pedalion:
Quote
7. As for those heretics who betake themselves to Orthodoxy, and to the lot of the saved, we accept them in accordance with the subjoined sequence and custom; viz.: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, those calling themselves Cathari (or "Puritans"), and (those calling themselves) Aristeri (Note of Translator. — This designation may be based upon the Greek word aristos, meaning "best," though as a word it signifies "lefthand."), and the Quartodecimans (quasi "Fourteenthists," to use the English language in this connection), otherwise known as Tetradites (though in English this term is applied to an entirely different group of heretics), and Apollinarians we accept when they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the catholic and apostolic Church of God, and are sealed first with holy myron (more usually called "chrism" in English) on their forehead and their eyes, and nose, and mouth, and ears; and in sealing them we say: "A seal of a free gift of Holy Spirit." As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who do some other bad things, and (those belonging to) any other heresies (for there are many heretics here, especially such as come from the country of the Galatians: all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks. Accordingly, on the first day we make (Note of Translator. — The meaning of this word here is more exactly rendered "treat as") them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; then, on the third day, we exorcize them with the act of blowing thrice into their face and into their ears; and thus do we catechize them, and we make them tarry a while in the church and listen to the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

(Ap. cc. XLVI, XLVII, LXVIII; cc. VIII, XIX of the 1st; c. XCV of the 6th; cc. VII, VIII of Laod.; c. LXVI of Carth.; cc. I, V, XLVII of Basil.)


Interpretation.

The present Canon specifies in what way we ought to receive those coming from heresies and joining the Orthodox faith and the portion of the saved. It says that, as for Arians and Macedonians, of whom we have spoken in Canon I of the present Council, and Sabbatians and Quartodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we will accept them after they give us libelli, or issue a written document (libellus is a Latin word, interpreted, according to Zonaras, as meaning "publication or issue") anathematizing both their own heresy as well as every other heresy that does not believe as the holy catholic and apostolic Church of God believes (just as the First Ec. C. demanded this stipulation in writing from Novatians particularly in its c. VIII), whose forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, and ears we first seal with holy myron, saying in each seal, "a seal of a free gift of Holy Spirit." And we will accept thus all these converts without rebaptizing them, since, according to Zonaras, in respect of holy baptism they nowise differ from us, and baptize themselves likewise as do the Orthodox. But as for Arians and Macedonians, who are manifestly heretics, the Canon accepted them without rebaptism "economically" (Note of Translator. — This term, and the corresponding noun "economy" and verb "economize," in the peculiar idiom of the Orthodox Church can hardly be said to be translatable into genuine English; as a first approximation they may be taken as signifying something like "managing a disagreeable set of circumstances with tact and shrewdness, instead of insisting upon precision"), the primary reason being the vast multitude of such heretics then prevalent, and a second reason being that they used to baptize themselves in the same way as we do. As regards Eunomians, on the other hand, who practiced baptism with a single immersion, and the Montanists, who there in Constantinople were known as Phrygians; and the Sabellians, who used to say that the Father and the Son were one and the same person, and who used to do other terrible things, and all the other heresies of heretics (a great many of whom were to be found there, and especially those who came from the country of the Galatians); as for all these persons, I say, we accept them as Greeks, or, in other words, as persons totally unbaptized; for these persons either have not been baptized at all or, though baptized, have not been baptized aright and in a strictly Orthodox manner, wherefore they are regarded as not having been baptized at all). Accordingly, on the first day (of their reception) we make them Christians, that is to say, in other words, we make them accept all the dogmas of Christians (while they are standing) outside the Narthex of the church, the priest meantime laying his hand upon them, in accordance with c. XXXIX of the local synod or regional council held in Illiberia, a country in Spain; on the second day we make them catechumens, or, in other words, we place them in the class called catechumens; on the third day we read to them the usual exorcisms, at the same time blowing three times into their face and into their ears. And thus we catechize them in regard to particular aspects of the faith, and make them stay in church a long time and listen to the divine Scriptures, and then we baptize them.

Canon VII of Laodicea too would have Novatians and Quartodecimans returning to Orthodoxy treated economically in exactly the same way as they are in this Canon: that is to say, with anathematization of their heresy, and with the seal of the Myron. But Phrygians returning are required by c. VIII of the same C. to be baptized. But it must be said also that c. XCV of the 6th is nothing else than a repetition of the present Canon, except that it goes on to say that Manichees, and Valentinians, and Marcionists must be baptized when they turn to Orthodoxy; but Eutychians, and Dioscorites, and Severians may be accepted after anathematizing their own heresies — as may also the Novatians, that is to say, and the rest. Canon XIX of the First Ec. C. wants all Paulianists to get baptized in any case without fail, as is also witnessed by c. XCV of the 6th. Canon XLVII of Basil says for Encratites, and Saccophori, and Apotactites (concerning whom see c. XCV of the 6th) to get baptized when they become converted. Canon V of the same saint says for us to accept those heretics who repent at the end of their life, though not to do so indiscriminately, but only after trying them out. Read also Ap. cc. XLVI and XLVII.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_ecumenical_rudder.htm#_Toc34001968

Quote
95. As for heretics who are joining Orthodoxy and the portion of the saved, we accept them in accordance with the subjoined sequence and custom. Arians and Macedonians and Novations, who called themselves Cathari and Aristeri, and the Tessarakaidekatitae, or, at any rate, those called Tetradites and Apolinarists, we accept, when they give us certificates (called libelli); and when they anathematize every heresy that does not believe as the holy catholic and Apostolic Church of God believes, and are sealed, i. e., are anointed first with holy myron on the forehead and the eyes, and the nose and mouth, and the ears, while we are anointing them and sealing them we say, "A seal of a gift of Holy Spirit." As concerning Paulianists who have afterwards taken refuge in the Catholic Church, a definition has been promulgated that they have to be rebaptized without fail. As for Eunomians, however, who baptize with a single immersion, and Montanists who are hereabouts called Phrygians and Sabellians, who hold the tenet Hyiopatoria (or modalistic monarchianism) and do other embarrassing things; and all other heresies — for there are many hereabouts, especially those hailing from the country of the Galatians — as for all of them who wish to join Orthodoxy, we accept them as Greeks. Accordingly, on the first day, we make them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; after this, on the third day we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and into their ears. And thus we catechize them, and make them stay for a long time in church and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them. As for Manicheans, and Valentinians, and Marcionists, and those from similar heresies, they have to give us certificates (called libelli) and anathematize their heresy, the Nestorians, and Nestorius, and Eutyches and Dioscorus, and Severus, and the other exarchs of such heresies, and those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies, and thus they are allowed to partake of holy Communion.


Interpretation.

As for the present Canon, from the beginning of it to the point where it says "and then we baptize them," it is word for word the same as c. VII of the 2nd. The interval beginning "As concerning Paulianists" to "without fail" is taken from c. XIX of the 1st verbatim. For this reason we do not even trouble to interpret these parts here again; see their interpretation there. The rest of the Canon is a decree of the present Council’s own, which says that the Manicheans, and Valentinians, and Marcionists, when they join Orthodoxy, must be baptized, as also the Eunomians and Montanists, according to the interpretation given by Balsamon. Nestorians, and Eutychians, Dioscorites, and Severians, have to anathematize in writing their own heresy and their heresiarchs, and all those persons who believe in their heresies, among whom are numbered also the Monotheletes, as well as the Novatians and the Macedonians, and after doing so they are allowed to partake of the divine Mysteries.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_ecumenical_rudder.htm#_Toc34001973
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #216 on: August 30, 2010, 01:06:47 PM »

It is  dilemmas like this one, I can never understand.
You were baptized.
The shuddering you all just felt the earth do was its reaction to me fully agreeing with Augustin717.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #217 on: August 30, 2010, 01:13:17 PM »

to the Church of Smyrna (Cool (which IIRC, is where Theophilos now worships)

Is there an active Orthodox parish in Smyrna/Izmir now? It seemed to me that the last one had ended its activities in 1923... but then again, there are lots of Russians there now, so it might be one of the cities where the MP lends priests to the EP for ministering to them?

Well, not a "just a flesh wound," but Christianity wasn't eradicated from Asia Minor.

Before our Mother died, she handed down to my younger Sister-In-Law a locket Cross which belonged to our Grandmother. As some of you know, our Grandmother was Pontian and fled to Smyrna (modern Ismir) when the Christians were being persecuted. They lived in Smyrna for a few years, and then when the Turks burned Smyrna in September 1922, they fled with others by boat to the Island of Limnos.
The locket Cross belonging to my Grandmother, we were told, contained a small piece of wax from the Candles which held the Holy Fire in the Church of St. Polycarp in Smyrna in the Pascha of 1910.
Today, my Sister-In-Law decided to open the locket for the first time. Inside, she found a small piece of beeswax and a rolled up piece of yellowed paper with Greek handwriting. My Sister-In-Law is not Greek, but is a convert, and my brother is overseas, so she couldn't read it. She scanned the manuscript and sent it to me. The text turned out to be the "Letter to the Angel of the Church in Smyrna" from the Book of Revelations (Revelations 2:8-10):

"And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘These things says the First and the Last, Who was dead, and came to life: “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life."



Beautiful.

I am sure that your grandmother is pleased her Faith was not wasted, not only in her offspring, but her adopted city as well:
A couple of weeks ago, in one of our Chat sessions here we were pleased to have an OC.net member and a Turkish convert to Orthodoxy, living in Izmir (Smyrna), who worships in one of those alleged "empty, titular" churches there - reporting 100 or so faithful at Divine Liturgy the previous Sunday. Braver and better Christians than I, and maybe others, by far.

Might want to ask your priest or write your bishop.

I cannot do that because the priest who baptized me reposed in the Lord last year. (Memory eternal).

Now I am no more in the city where I received the holy mysteries. In my new place there is a small Greek Church that opens occasionally (once in a while). The priest that mostly comes to celebrate the divine liturgy does not speak English. I cannot speak Greek. This is why it is almost impossible for us to communicate and talk about this serious issue. More, even if the Greek priest said that I needed to be baptized again, the second baptism would not be easy as the Greek Church here will never baptize converts from Islam in my country. (We must leave the country and receive baptism in another place due to the problems between the EP and the government).  Sad

Btw, refering to the baptism in question as "Holy Mysteries" should answer the OP question.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #218 on: August 30, 2010, 01:16:55 PM »

Stashko,
AFAIK, the Serbs of Voivodina and Banat (including those in the Romanian Banat) have been routinely baptizing by pouring.
Thanks for the info....
It is confusing,Holy Orthodoxy Has to get togeather and decide ,on either pouring ,sprinkling,or immersion,
and stick with it ,and no excuses to deviate from it....I like the music from romunska banat  and srbska banat, very good ... Grin
The Apostles neither gave nor the Fathers passed on a "one size fits all" approach, so why should we adopt one?  They did pass on the preference for immersion, and we should keep it. Sprinking should be only a last resort (in the desert, these things happen).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #219 on: August 30, 2010, 01:20:48 PM »

Can they not invest in a cheap rubber horse trough until they can afford a properly gold-guilded opulent baptistry?  Wink

Really, that's your solution?  Bring a horse trough in?  Please tell me that is a joke.  You bring a horse trough into my church, and you'll get the same response as someone bringing in an inflatable kiddie pool - right out the door with you.

As others have pointed out, many parishes do this.


Indeed!  During the construction of my parish's current temple, we used a horse trough for adult baptisms until we could get a proper baptismal constructed in the narthex.  Of course, we also kept the horse trough outside and baptized people there rather than bring the trough into the church.  The current baptismal is itself not gilded or opulent, unlike Alveus's exaggerated caricatures; it's just a very simply constructed baptismal that fits the theme of simplicity that guided the design of our church.

Sounds like a bare bone catholic church, have to stay away from that one...I prefer the heavily emblished Holy Orthodox churches,that ,really say , Im a Holy Orthodx Church.... Grin

Not everyone has the Czar's bankroll.   Nor Eastern taste (altough I do, and love the Serbian Monastery in Libertyville)
« Last Edit: August 30, 2010, 01:22:10 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #220 on: August 30, 2010, 01:27:36 PM »

There is simply no equating a horse trough font with a "dirty stream" like you did.  This kind of object is manufactured and sold because it's useful for providing water to livestock, but the bottom line is that IT'S JUST A BIG TUB.  Why would it be any different from any other vessel that holds 150 gallons of water?

I've given my reasons before.  You don't like them, fine - you don't have to.  But repeating your question over and over is not going to elicit a different response from me.

You called it disgusting and distasteful to use an "animal feeding device".  

I pointed out that a "horse trough" used as a baptismal font is not, in fact, an animal feeding device at all.

You respond by stating that I am

unwilling or unable to continue in a rational discussion on this subject.

I therefore respond by stating my perplexity that you did not respond to the statement that the object in question is not, in fact, an "animal feeding device", but in fact a big tub that may have been sold with that purpose in mind but has never been used as such, and instead chose to accuse me of not being able to respond rationally to you.

Here's what I'm getting out of all this:
You:  "Horse trough baptismal fonts are distasteful because it is unseemly to use an animal feeding device in a church."
Me:  "It's not an animal feeding device."
You:  "You're incapable of discussing this rationally."

And yes, I do think you imply some baptisms are holier than others, despite your protests to the contrary, when you say things like "a horse trough does not belong in the Church for use in baptism".

Even though I have stated both that I did not imply that some are holier, and have gone out of my way explicitly to state that none are holier than others, you choose to believe that I said something different than what was plainly stated.  Why should I believe that you are willing or able to continue a rational discussion on the subject matter when you choose to interpret my intent differently than how I explicitly explained it?

It is not an uncommon condition to have a way of thinking that leads to a conclusion that is different from what one is willing to explicitly state.  

You may resist thinking that some baptisms are holier than others because you do think it's wrong to think such things, but it is quite possible to look at how you have explained your resistance to horse troughs (or if you prefer, "large tubs that happen to be sold with livestock hydration in mind but are no more specific to that purpose than any other large tub that holds liquid") and reach a different conclusion.

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I think there is a discrepancy you're not conscious of, and I think you should work through it instead of casting aspersions upon me.

If you choose to continue to think that a horse trough is invariably an animal feeding device and therefore not proper to be used in church, that's fine.  

In that case, I would like to point out that an animal feeding device was good enough for Baby Jesus to be born in, so I think it's fine for me to be born in, too.
LOL. And I think the animals actually ate out of that one.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #221 on: August 30, 2010, 01:36:56 PM »

This is true, but GOD also said the following in the Old Testament:

I am that I am. You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you'. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation. (Exodus 3:14-15)

Indeed, but the Christian equivalent (going back to the Septuagint) of "I am" is "ho kyrios"/"the LORD". And just as the Old Testament has El and "I am", the Orthodox Church has theos and kyrios, God and Lord, Allah and al-rabb...

I personally believe that translating the sentence I AM THAT I AM into Greek as Kyrios o Theos was not accurate since the Greek words fail to be the exact equivalent of the name occurring in Exodus 3. Maybe we should use the word YHWH in our worship no matter what our mother tongue is. (Muslims also use the word Allah in every language).

LOL. Why do you stop imitating the pre-Muhammad Arab (and Aramaic) Christians, to imitate the post Muhammad Muslims (and Jehova Witnesses)?
Giritliler ve Araplar var aramızda. Ama her birimiz Tanrının büyük işlerinin kendi dilimizde konuşulduğunu işitiyoruz. Acts 2:11.

The Fathers used the word for "God" they found, or they adapted one. We should stick to their example, and care neither what the Muslims nor the Protestants do.

Quote
Another possibility: Let's have the exact literal translation of the sentence I AM THAT I AM in Greek. (Something like Egw eimi...)
the phrase of the LXX is egw eimi ho wn, hence in the icons
« Last Edit: August 30, 2010, 01:45:20 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #222 on: August 30, 2010, 01:48:13 PM »


Or let's just trust that our God-bearing Fathers had a better idea of how to render things than we do.

and like our God-bearing Fathers, let's avoid invoking the names of false and pagan deities.  Wink

Better yet, lets not concede to pagans and Muslims what they stole.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #223 on: August 30, 2010, 01:50:02 PM »


Both Christians and Muslims use an Arabic word, but mean different things. What is so difficult to unterstand about it? When CHP says "freedom" (özgürlük), they mean the freedom to be without headscarf. When AKP says freedom, they mean the freedom to be WITH headscarf. Same word, opposite meaning.

Can I follow this example and pray to Apollon, having in mind the true God of Christianity? Or would it be wrong for me to pray to Apollon no matter how I strive to prove that MY Apollon is different from THE Apollon of the Greek mythology?  Roll Eyes
Were the Christians praying to Apollon before the Greek pagans?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #224 on: August 30, 2010, 02:00:25 PM »

Allah in Arabic is simply ilah with definite article. Allah and ilah are like ho theos and theos in Greek.

Do we have the word OTHEOS in Greek? Can we attach the definite article to the word Theos and produce a new word?

Does Arabic have other examples for the invention of new names through the contraction of the definite article? Not that I know.
Actually, sort of, yes.  Many names like Hasan (Turkish Hasen) and Husayn (Turk. Huseyin) were orginally al-Hasan, al-Husayn, because Arab grammar requires that names be defenite, and if not in definite form, be made so.  Usage now as made Hasan and Husayn definite, such that they are so even though they have indefinite endings, but require definite agreement (a big deal in Arabic syntax).  Some still flucturate: al-Iskandariyyah or Iskandariyyah for Alexandria, though it is always Iskandar for Alexander.


Quote
For instance, in Arabic Masih means anointed/Christ. With the definite article it is Al Masih. However, it is never spelled Almasih! Rab means Lord in Arabic. Al Rab: The Lord. Yet Arabic does not have the word Alrab.
LOL. Actually, in Arabic it is never written al Masih, always almasih, and never al rabb but always alrabb.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: baptism 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  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 0.185 seconds with 72 queries.