Topic: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition

[Brigidsboy]

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...

Yup. That, and don't feed the troll.

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  

High time this tiresome troll was shut down!

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred, perhaps you missed this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt

Money quote:  "Her Vita relates that when she tried to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for the celebration, she was barred from doing so by an unseen force. Realizing that this was because of her impurity, she was struck with remorse, and on seeing an icon of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) outside the church, she prayed for forgiveness and promised to give up the world (i.e., become an ascetic). Then she attempted again to enter the church, and this time was permitted in. After venerating the relic of the true cross, she returned to the icon to give thanks, and heard a voice telling her, "If you cross the Jordan, you will find glorious rest/ true peace." She immediately went to the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the bank of the River Jordan, where she received absolution and afterwards Holy Communion."

This is a direct correlation of an icon and conversion, by an Orthodox Saint, who came to know the real Christ; what you call a "Real McCoy."

Very close, but I must bring to your attention it didn't comply with the need for objectivity. To you she is clearly speaking about Jesus, to me I have some doubt. There is bias, yours and mine. The only way we can keep this scientific, weed out the bias, is to do what I said in Reply #241 above :

People can love entities they believe are Jesus, but are not:

 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
 (Gal 1:6-9 NKJ)

They prove love for the genuine Jesus of Scripture, by obeying what He taught in scripture:

23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. (Joh 14:23NKJ)

They are interchangeable. Loving Christ's Word is loving Him, Loving Him is Loving Christ's Word. This indicates indwelling, the loving of Christ's Word in scripture. It is, as it were, "Loving Christ's commands in scripture is THE outward physical evidence of Christ dwelling within."

So Christ set the OBJECTIVE standard...

If you find an Orthodox saint who proclaims their love for the commands of Christ in the gospels, and by all accounts lived according to His commands...after partaking something in Orthodox Tradition, icons, sacraments, whatever, you have proved Orthodox Tradition worthy of being classed with Scripture Tradition.

We must prove the invisible, by the visible effects of His indwelling. Love for and obedience to His Word in the Bible, is the proof we need.

So it is a simple test. It should be easy for you to find reams of testimony how doing xyz Orthodox Tradition led to Christ' indwelling, to a profound love of His commandments in scripture, thereby proving Jesus is indwelling.[/color]

[Salpy]

Alfred again ignores post #254, which provides the answer about an Orthodox saint who was converted by, among other things, the spiritual experience garnered by praying with and kissing an icon.

Is something wrong with his computer screen? Does he just not want to read all the posts?

Or does he just refuse to admit it, perhaps because it's fun to play some kind of game?

It's there, Alfred. No one else can do the reading for you.

It could be his computer has something wrong and it won't let him read reply 254.  I'll copy it here, just in case.  From reply 254, above:

Alfred, perhaps you missed this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt

Money quote:  "Her Vita relates that when she tried to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for the celebration, she was barred from doing so by an unseen force. Realizing that this was because of her impurity, she was struck with remorse, and on seeing an icon of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) outside the church, she prayed for forgiveness and promised to give up the world (i.e., become an ascetic). Then she attempted again to enter the church, and this time was permitted in. After venerating the relic of the true cross, she returned to the icon to give thanks, and heard a voice telling her, "If you cross the Jordan, you will find glorious rest/ true peace." She immediately went to the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the bank of the River Jordan, where she received absolution and afterwards Holy Communion."

This is a direct correlation of an icon and conversion, by an Orthodox Saint, who came to know the real Christ; what you call a "Real McCoy."

[Salpy]

Oh, he replied while I was writing the above.  But wait!  Since someone was able to find what he said we couldn't find, he's changing his request again.  I'm so surprised!

[biro]

Very close, but I must bring to your attention it didn't comply with the need for objectivity. To you she is clearly speaking about Jesus, to me I have some doubt.

See?

 

When you lose, change the rules... this is the song that never ends... 

[bogdan]

Very close, but I must bring to your attention it didn't comply with the need for objectivity. To you she is clearly speaking about Jesus, to me I have some doubt.

See?

 

When you lose, change the rules... this is the song that never ends... 

"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."

[Melodist]

But if you asked me to hypothesize, I must conclude any venerating an icon of Jesus, believing it goes to the prototype Jesus in heaven, is thereby testifying Christ is not near, not indwelling. He is far away in heaven, and you are, as it were, placing a long distance call.

To me, veneration of icons, is outward physical evidence the prototype being venerated, is not present.

When I was in the Marine Corps I saluted (venerated) the American Flag (the image) while I was still in America (the prototype). The honor being shown to the flag (the image) was in fact passed on to the country for which it stands (the prototype), and because I was still inside the country, it was not a sign that I was seperated from the prototype of the image to which I was giving honor.

Your analogy is unsound, to illustrate:

I bite into an apple and claim it proves what an orange tastes like. No, it does not, because the properties relevant to the comparison, are incompatible.

In similar fashion, your comparison of flag to icon is unsound.

My analogy is sound. It's about the closest I can come to finding something that most people can relate to. If it is entirely unsound as you claim, then I welcome correction in the form of a better analogy that is easier for everyone to relate to. Unfortunately for you, the only objection to my analogy comes from someone who isn't Orthodox, therefore can't be relied on as a reliable source of Orthodox doctrine.

A flag is a symbol, NOT an icon.

It is an image that expresses and bears witness to something other than itself.

A flag does not have a prototype, an icon does.

No one salutes it for the purpose of giving honor to nothing more than a piece of cloth.

The United States is not a person with a presence, its a country with geographical boundaries.

Do you really think that flag represents nothing more than a just piece of dirt with geographical boundaries?

A sound analogy, as you believe you are communicating with the prototype via the icon, is a telephone. Just as you are talking "long distance" via the icon, so one talks "long distance" via a telephone.

Therefore the properties relevant to the comparison are compatible. Just as calling long distance via telephone proves the person being called is not present, so also calling long distance via an icon proves the person is not present.

If that was such a sound analogy for Orthodox doctrine, to the point where it meant being completely absent from the prototype, why is there not a single Orthodox Christian here who believes that?

[Sleeper]

In her own words, again:

"But from that time until the present day, the power of God has guarded my sinful soul and humble body. I was fed and clothed by the all-powerful word of God, since man does not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God (Dt 8:3, Mt.4:4, Luke 4:4), and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38). When I remember from what evil and from what sins the Lord delivered me, I have imperishible food for salvation."

That, to me, is pretty clear evidence (though you'll probably reject its source for some reason) that her conversion was true and that she put into practice Christ's  commandments.

And just because I found it interesting, here is a bit more:

When Abba Zosimas heard that the holy ascetic quoted the Holy Scripture from memory, from the Books of Moses and Job and from the Psalms of David, he then asked the woman, "Mother, have you read the Psalms and other books?"

She smiled at hearing this question, and answered, "Believe me, I have seen no human face but yours from the time that I crossed over the Jordan. I never learned from books. I have never heard anyone read or sing from them. Perhaps the Word of God, which is alive and acting, teaches man knowledge by itself (Col 3:16, 1 Thess 2:13). This is the end of my story. As I asked when I began, I beg you for the sake of the Incarnate Word of God, holy Abba, pray for me, a sinner."

If this was not Christ living and dwelling within her, then what was it?

[biro]

"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."

 



Oh no!

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred again ignores post #254, which provides the answer about an Orthodox saint who was converted by, among other things, the spiritual experience garnered by praying with and kissing an icon.

Is something wrong with his computer screen? Does he just not want to read all the posts?

Or does he just refuse to admit it, perhaps because it's fun to play some kind of game?

It's there, Alfred. No one else can do the reading for you.

It could be his computer has something wrong and it won't let him read reply 254.  I'll copy it here, just in case.  From reply 254, above:

Alfred, perhaps you missed this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt

Money quote:  "Her Vita relates that when she tried to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for the celebration, she was barred from doing so by an unseen force. Realizing that this was because of her impurity, she was struck with remorse, and on seeing an icon of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) outside the church, she prayed for forgiveness and promised to give up the world (i.e., become an ascetic). Then she attempted again to enter the church, and this time was permitted in. After venerating the relic of the true cross, she returned to the icon to give thanks, and heard a voice telling her, "If you cross the Jordan, you will find glorious rest/ true peace." She immediately went to the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the bank of the River Jordan, where she received absolution and afterwards Holy Communion."

This is a direct correlation of an icon and conversion, by an Orthodox Saint, who came to know the real Christ; what you call a "Real McCoy."

Reply 271 above addresses his post.

I can't answer everyone at the same time, his was among the best of the lot so far... I give him lots of respect...he is trying to defend Orthodox Tradition. Will you join him soon?

[Salpy]

Please read reply 273, where I made it clear (I thought) that I wrote what I did while you were writing reply 271.   

[Salpy]

..he is trying to defend Orthodox Tradition. Will you join him soon?

Nice.  No wonder you're making so many converts.

[bogdan]

Another ignored overlooked point:

Evidently you can't find one Orthodox saint who, after kissing an icon, or partaking of a sacrament, or whatever it is you do in Orthodox Tradition that is supposed to draw you closer to God---that did the same as scripture. If it didn't lead to Christ's indwelling,precisely as Jesus said, then your Tradition is clearly inferior to Sola Scriptura...yea, even irrelevant.

I don't need to find a saint. I took communion today; I was indwelt by Christ through it. To wit:

"... that... I may receive a portion of thy Holy Gifts, and be united to thy Holy Body and Precious Blood, and may have thee, with thy Father and Holy Spirit, dwelling and abiding in me. ..."

-The Prayers Before Holy Communion, Prayer 1, A Prayer of Saint Basil the Great

I provided precisely what you asked for: an example of being indwelt by Christ through a sacrament. Retract the claim.

[Alfred Persson]

In her own words, again:

"But from that time until the present day, the power of God has guarded my sinful soul and humble body. I was fed and clothed by the all-powerful word of God, since man does not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God (Dt 8:3, Mt.4:4, Luke 4:4), and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38). When I remember from what evil and from what sins the Lord delivered me, I have imperishible food for salvation."

That, to me, is pretty clear evidence (though you'll probably reject its source for some reason) that her conversion was true and that she put into practice Christ's  commandments.

And just because I found it interesting, here is a bit more:

When Abba Zosimas heard that the holy ascetic quoted the Holy Scripture from memory, from the Books of Moses and Job and from the Psalms of David, he then asked the woman, "Mother, have you read the Psalms and other books?"

She smiled at hearing this question, and answered, "Believe me, I have seen no human face but yours from the time that I crossed over the Jordan. I never learned from books. I have never heard anyone read or sing from them. Perhaps the Word of God, which is alive and acting, teaches man knowledge by itself (Col 3:16, 1 Thess 2:13). This is the end of my story. As I asked when I began, I beg you for the sake of the Incarnate Word of God, holy Abba, pray for me, a sinner."

If this was not Christ living and dwelling within her, then what was it?

Her words do not indicate a love for scripture, she changed its meaning, one doesn't change what they love:
"and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38)"

The context of the quote isn't about the victims of evil hiding themselves in rocks:

8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.
 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
 12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;
 (Col 3:8-12 NKJ)

Its odd indeed she jumps from THAT to this:

4 They push the needy off the road; All the poor of the land are forced to hide.
 5 Indeed, like wild donkeys in the desert, They go out to their work, searching for food. The wilderness yields food for them and for their children.
 6 They gather their fodder in the field And glean in the vineyard of the wicked.
 7 They spend the night naked, without clothing, And have no covering in the cold.
 8 They are wet with the showers of the mountains, And huddle around the rock for want of shelter.
 9 "Some snatch the fatherless from the breast, And take a pledge from the poor.
 10 They cause the poor to go naked, without clothing; And they take away the sheaves from the hungry.
 (Job 24:4-10 NKJ)

Can you explain that "disconnect"? I don't get it.

Is she saying she once was doing that to others? Is she now need and in want for shelter...that's not what putting the old man off, is.

Col 3:9 means repenting of the "old man's ways"...for her to jump to evil people and their victims is peculiar, odd.

Unsound.

A sound mind is a gift of the Holy Spirit:

7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. (2Ti 1:7 NKJ)

Therefore on that basis alone, the unsoundness of her "exegesis," indicates her experiences are suspect.

Surely you can find a better example of someone obeying Christ's teaching in the Bible, after an encounter with your Tradition in some fashion. Your Tradition has had 2,000 years to generate such true believers.



PS: Claiming supernatural knowledge of scripture without reading it, when Jesus and His apostles had to read it, works against her credibility, not for it.

[Salpy]

Her words do not indicate a love for scripture,

Her words indicate a love for Christ.  Christ is our God.  You don't get that.  Stop worshipping the Bible. 

[Salpy]

Your Tradition has had 2,000 years to generate such true believers.

Thank you for admitting that our Tradition is 2000 years old.  How old is your own personal tradition?

[PeterTheAleut]

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...

Yup. That, and don't feed the troll.

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...

Yup. That, and don't feed the troll.

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  

High time this tiresome troll was shut down!

Why? Has he violated any forum rules recently? I haven't seen any formal complaints come off this thread the last few days. We're not going to mute him just because some people find him irritating and can't keep themselves from arguing with him. If you think him a troll, DON'T ARGUE WITH HIM. It's really that simple.

[bogdan]

Her words do not indicate a love for scripture,

Her words indicate a love for Christ.  Christ is our God.  You don't get that.  Stop worshipping the Bible. 

He can't. For him Christ can only be known through the Bible (or the "correct" interpretation thereof), so the two are inextricably linked. I can't tell where one ends and the other begins.

Meanwhile in Orthodoxy, the Bible is the preeminent witness to Christ, but Christ exists quite above and apart from the Bible. I can't provide a citation so I should perhaps bite my tongue, but I believe St John Chrysostom said somewhere that the Church would function exactly the same as it does, and Christianity would be exactly the same as it is, even if the Bible had not come down to us. IOW the Bible exists to prove the Church, not vice-versa.

[bogdan]

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...

Yup. That, and don't feed the troll.

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...

Yup. That, and don't feed the troll.

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  

High time this tiresome troll was shut down!

Why? Has he violated any forum rules recently? I haven't seen any formal complaints come off this thread the last few days. We're not going to mute him just because some people find him irritating and can't keep themselves from arguing with him. If you think him a troll, DON'T ARGUE WITH HIM. It's really that simple.

I know, I'm just playing.   Alfred has been well-behaved in keeping things centralized in specific threads, and I commend him for that.

[PeterTheAleut]

Alfred just ignores most of the posts against him, or immediately says it 'doesn't constitute an argument.' That's his tactic. That's it. Does he seriously want us to re-post most of this thread? Is he kidding?  

Again, he claims that there is no argument against him, that there can never be one. By default, all his posts are rhetorical. Now, he said he was going to proselytize, but he has also appeared to entertain a discussion or ongoing debate. The gig is up. (Was it ever really otherwise?)

If someone is playing with loaded dice, there is fundamentally no game going on. There is only a fixed set, and the process of waiting for the other party to walk into a set-up.

Alfred is what he is. He is here to preach. There's nothing to worry about, because he can't hurt the faith, but he thinks there was another Christianity taking place all along, while Jesus and the Apostles went about their business... and there wasn't.

If you ever had an argument, I really think it would render you unconscious. The sudden burst of critical thinking, would overwhelm your synapses.

Did you intend that statement to belittle biro's intelligence or the size of his brain? If so, that's the type of juvenile ad hominem for which you've already drawn one formal warning. Please keep from treading this line so we don't have to warn you again.

[Sleeper]

In her own words, again:

"But from that time until the present day, the power of God has guarded my sinful soul and humble body. I was fed and clothed by the all-powerful word of God, since man does not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God (Dt 8:3, Mt.4:4, Luke 4:4), and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38). When I remember from what evil and from what sins the Lord delivered me, I have imperishible food for salvation."

That, to me, is pretty clear evidence (though you'll probably reject its source for some reason) that her conversion was true and that she put into practice Christ's  commandments.

And just because I found it interesting, here is a bit more:

When Abba Zosimas heard that the holy ascetic quoted the Holy Scripture from memory, from the Books of Moses and Job and from the Psalms of David, he then asked the woman, "Mother, have you read the Psalms and other books?"

She smiled at hearing this question, and answered, "Believe me, I have seen no human face but yours from the time that I crossed over the Jordan. I never learned from books. I have never heard anyone read or sing from them. Perhaps the Word of God, which is alive and acting, teaches man knowledge by itself (Col 3:16, 1 Thess 2:13). This is the end of my story. As I asked when I began, I beg you for the sake of the Incarnate Word of God, holy Abba, pray for me, a sinner."

If this was not Christ living and dwelling within her, then what was it?

Her words do not indicate a love for scripture, she changed its meaning, one doesn't change what they love:
"and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38)"

The context of the quote isn't about the victims of evil hiding themselves in rocks:

8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.
 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
 12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;
 (Col 3:8-12 NKJ)

Its odd indeed she jumps from THAT to this:

4 They push the needy off the road; All the poor of the land are forced to hide.
 5 Indeed, like wild donkeys in the desert, They go out to their work, searching for food. The wilderness yields food for them and for their children.
 6 They gather their fodder in the field And glean in the vineyard of the wicked.
 7 They spend the night naked, without clothing, And have no covering in the cold.
 8 They are wet with the showers of the mountains, And huddle around the rock for want of shelter.
 9 "Some snatch the fatherless from the breast, And take a pledge from the poor.
 10 They cause the poor to go naked, without clothing; And they take away the sheaves from the hungry.
 (Job 24:4-10 NKJ)

Can you explain that "disconnect"? I don't get it.

Is she saying she once was doing that to others? Is she now need and in want for shelter...that's not what putting the old man off, is.

Col 3:9 means repenting of the "old man's ways"...for her to jump to evil people and their victims is peculiar, odd.

Unsound.

A sound mind is a gift of the Holy Spirit:

7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. (2Ti 1:7 NKJ)

Therefore on that basis alone, the unsoundness of her "exegesis," indicates her experiences are suspect.

Surely you can find a better example of someone obeying Christ's teaching in the Bible, after an encounter with your Tradition in some fashion. Your Tradition has had 2,000 years to generate such true believers.



PS: Claiming supernatural knowledge of scripture without reading it, when Jesus and His apostles had to read it, works against her credibility, not for it.

And you know these are the correct interpretations how, again?  You've still not addressed the utter and inescapable subjectivity of the Sola Scriptura position.

And even beside that, there is not one interpretation of a passage.

[Salpy]

The life of St. Catherine also shows how Christ can use an icon to bring someone to Himself:

The beautiful Catherine made it quite clear that she would only take a young man as her husband if he was like her in virtue, that is, having the characteristics which made her distinctive amongst other women. She refused to consider any man who was unworthy or inferior, for he would be deemed unsuitable.

The young maiden’s mother and relatives soon realised the impossibility of finding such worthy husband. After many unsuccessful attempts, Catherine’s mother decided to seek the help of her spiritual confessor who lived in hiding outside the city. She took her daughter to visit the elder. The ascetic, noticing this young girl's modesty, firmly decided to convey to her his knowledge of Christ, the heavenly King.

Catherine was soon overwhelmed by the attributes of this potential groom and assumed that the elder was referring to an earthly prince. She questioned the elder and asked to see the Youth. The old man gave her an icon of the most holy Theotokos holding the divine Child. He then instructed her to close herself in her bedchamber and pray all night with reverence to Mary, so that she might reveal her Son. Catherine did as the elder directed and exerted herself in prayer and humbleness and as result fell asleep. All of a sudden she had a vision of the Queen of the Angels, as portrayed in the icon, holding the holy Child. His face was turned towards His Mother and so Catherine could only see His back. Three times Catherine attempted to see the face of Christ but He would only turn the other way. The Theotokos begged for her sweet Child to look upon Catherine but eventually Christ advised her to return to the elder, who gave her the icon, and follow his instructions. It was clear that the young bride was not yet worthy to meet her groom.

The next morning, Catherine wasted no time and immediately hurried to the old man’s cell and fell at his feet in tears. She informed him of her vision and begged for more advice. The blessed one thoroughly explained to her the sacraments and mysteries of the true faith (Orthodoxy). Catherine’s intelligence and wisdom allowed her to quickly grasp the fine points of the faith so she believed with all her heart and through holy baptism was accepted into the faith. The elder then instructed the holy maiden to again ask the Most Holy Theotokos to appear once again.   After praying with tears and fasting, she was overcome by sleep. The heavenly Queen with her divine Child again appeared to Catherine. This time, the Master Christ was pleased as her ignorance had now turned to enlightenment. She was now possessed with many good blessings and graces and in Christ's eyes she had become noble and eminent. Upon His Mother’s request, the Lord then gave Catherine a beautiful ring as a token of His eternal betrothal to her ad she was now worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. The following morning the young bride woke to find a ring on her right finger and her heart was now filled with the love of Christ.

http://www.stcatherines.org/StCatherine.htm

I'm sure Alfred will say this story doesn't count, because the incident with the icon only led her to be filled with love for Christ, instead of love for the Bible (which would not be fully compiled until sometime after St. Catherine's death.)  Still, for those of us who worship Christ, it is an inspiring story, especially given the fact that after the saint's conversion she turned so many others to Christ. 

[Alfred Persson]

Your analogy is unsound, to illustrate:

I bite into an apple and claim it proves what an orange tastes like. No, it does not, because the properties relevant to the comparison, are incompatible.

In similar fashion, your comparison of flag to icon is unsound.

My analogy is sound. It's about the closest I can come to finding something that most people can relate to. If it is entirely unsound as you claim, then I welcome correction in the form of a better analogy that is easier for everyone to relate to. Unfortunately for you, the only objection to my analogy comes from someone who isn't Orthodox, therefore can't be relied on as a reliable source of Orthodox doctrine.

The analogy is unsound because what is relevant to the conclusion is not analogous.

To illustrate. An apple is not analogous to an orange in taste because they have different properties relevant to taste, different chemicals make them taste differently.

A flag is not an icon, it is a symbol, the flag of the USA doesn't have the USA as its prototype. The flag symbolizes the USA.

If YOU said icons are symbolic only, like flags, your fellow Orthodox would declare that heretical, they reject the idea completely.

So your analogy is not analogous.

Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred just ignores most of the posts against him, or immediately says it 'doesn't constitute an argument.' That's his tactic. That's it. Does he seriously want us to re-post most of this thread? Is he kidding?  

Again, he claims that there is no argument against him, that there can never be one. By default, all his posts are rhetorical. Now, he said he was going to proselytize, but he has also appeared to entertain a discussion or ongoing debate. The gig is up. (Was it ever really otherwise?)

If someone is playing with loaded dice, there is fundamentally no game going on. There is only a fixed set, and the process of waiting for the other party to walk into a set-up.

Alfred is what he is. He is here to preach. There's nothing to worry about, because he can't hurt the faith, but he thinks there was another Christianity taking place all along, while Jesus and the Apostles went about their business... and there wasn't.

If you ever had an argument, I really think it would render you unconscious. The sudden burst of critical thinking, would overwhelm your synapses.

Did you intend that statement to belittle biro's intelligence or the size of his brain? If so, that's the type of juvenile ad hominem for which you've already drawn one formal warning. Please keep from treading this line so we don't have to warn you again.

No, didn't mean it that way. I apologize...it was jest...

I was looking at his definition of "argument." The idea I asked to copy paste the entire thread, when I asked he prove I didn't answer arguments,  shows complete ignorance of what an argument is, its form.


BUT reviewing all the crap you just said about me, I take my apology back.

I dont' believe that comment any worse than you calling me a troll...warn yourself.


If you want I get personal, I can very  easy. And just as you cannot best me in argumentation, neither will you in that area.

If you want an excuse to ban me...why bother...just  do it quickly. Everyone here will proclaim victory...and they will all rejoice.

Of course, those not joining in, may realize why you banned me...apologetic fail.

[SolEX01]

Everyone here will proclaim victory...and they will all rejoice.

We won't declare victory over you; You will proclaim victory over us as you continue to play the victim.

Of course, those not joining in, may realize why you banned me...apologetic fail.

Some of us were starting to ignore you as evident by the decrease in the posting volume of your subsequent threads.

[Alfred Persson]

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...

Yup. That, and don't feed the troll.

Put this under your hat, you got lots of room there. People follow you out of morbid curiosity.

When I meet a moderator calling me a troll, I realize I've met boob who can look through a key hole with both  eyes.

A pin head whose brain, if put on top of a razor, would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.

If you don't think this Christian, you don't know Christ, He would have lots more things to say about you.

You, sir, have crossed the line of rudeness.

While discussion of greater discipline for you has been conducted, it was decided to continue to allow you to post here due to the following reasons:

1. Your poorly structured "arguments" display for all this site the lack of substance behind anyone holding your position.

2. You entertain many of us with your belief system.

The consequences of your  Post Moderation status has been explained to you previously.

+FrChris
Admin

[Dart]

Dare I say it, Alfred has made a good point which has not yet been answered. That is what part of our Tradition is not supported by Scripture? In fact, could one not define Tradition as the "correct" interpretation of the Scripture. If one defines Scripture to include the Old Testament as well as any new revelations conveyed by the Holy Spirit as the Word than Tradition and Scripture are in essence the same.

Clarification though is needed from Alfred in this one point, though. Does the Holy Spirit continue to work and reveal the Truth? If so then I believe myself to be in agreement with Alfred taking into account his definitions of Scripture and Tradition.

So please do answer me, Alfred. Does the Holy Spirit continue to work and reveal the Truth? Have there been any prophets since the Bible was written? Dare I say, maybe Alfred is a prophet also?

[biro]

Put this under your hat, you got lots of room there. People follow you out of morbid curiosity.

When I meet a moderator calling me a troll, I realize I've met boob who can look through a key hole with both  eyes.

A pin head whose brain, if put on top of a razor, would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.

If you don't think this Christian, you don't know Christ, He would have lots more things to say about you.

Not only is that a series of name-calling, but it's barely coherent. Once again, Alfred presumes to speak for Christ. 

[genesisone]

Alfred, you ignored my post #245 (though I appreciated the others who did notice and followed up on it).

You refuse to accept St. Mary's testimony because she doesn't conform to your prejudices. You asked for an example of someone who came to love Jesus. From post #248:

I am willing to consider Orthodox extra biblical evidence your Tradition, whatever you say it is, can replicate the results of sola scriptura as defined by Jesus Christ.

Now you change the rules to say that you want someone who has a love of the Scriptures - and don't twist what Jesus said; He called us to love and serve Him - not to love and serve the Scriptures; He had harsh words for those who were focused on a text-based faith. You also made this pontifical claim in post #271:

To you she is clearly speaking about Jesus, to me I have some doubt.

St. Mary may have been illiterate - I don't know - in any case she was drawn to an isolated life of devotion. It is you who have limited God to the pages of a single book.

Perhaps you could help us out by showing us the life of someone who studied only the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, who was then convinced by that doctrine that he/she should then develop a relationship with Jesus Christ.

[android]

there are millions (perhaps billions, over the last 2000 years) of people who have been instructed in truth via icons. think of all of the illiterate christians throughout the ages.

scripture does not tell us of anyone that i can recall at the moment that was converted or saved by reading. scripture attests to tradition and the word of God (scripture) as being controlling authority. as mentioned, in Acts the very first theological dispute in the Church was resolved via a council of bishops, not by quoting scripture back and forth to one another. this is because the Apostles understood the mission Christ gave them and the role of the Church, with what ultimately became scripture as being the most logical medium for transmitting truth from generation to generation. scripture is just the written mechanism for truth. if we had video of christ himself that would be our main source of truth. the focus should be on the truth itself, not the medium through which truth is transmitted. scripture is a wonderful blessing.

this whole discussion is a non-starter, as sola scriptura was a necessary tool used by the reformers to appeal to a higher authority and demonstrate the manifest error of the powers that be in the Roman Catholic Church at the time. i get that. they were reacting, for understandable reasons at the time.

however, people have dug their heels in and carried things forward to today, and to recognize or acknowledge the limitations of sola scriptura is to acknowledge that protestant churches are generally inadequate and lacking in tradition. this is a difficult position to be in, even though it leads to ridiculous outcomes and the unfortunate reality of having to, in effect, be one's own source of authority. it's as exhausting as it erroneous.

and yet, pride is a helluva drug.

i attempted to parcipate in this thread a page ago, perhaps against my better judgment. the reasons sola scriptura is an inadequate (and unscriptural) dogma has been demonstrated over and over again very effectively by several posters.

now, i am reminded of the words of St. Isaac the Syrian:

"Flee from discussions of dogma as from an unruly lion; and never embark upon them yourself, either with those raised in the Church, or with strangers."

i love debate and love this site. the process can certainly strengthen people's faith.  initially, i was kind of disappointed at alfred's latest post, as i had initially read him as a sincere but misguided fellow. now, not so much.

of course, i say that at the risk of having a verse from Revelation quoted as referring to me personally, but it's a risk i'm willing to take.

[Sleeper]

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with genesisone on this one, Alfred.  I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but any time someone plays along and gives you what you ask for (e.g. someone who converted because of an icon) you change what you say you asked for.  What gives?

[Melodist]

Your analogy is unsound, to illustrate:

I bite into an apple and claim it proves what an orange tastes like. No, it does not, because the properties relevant to the comparison, are incompatible.

In similar fashion, your comparison of flag to icon is unsound.

My analogy is sound. It's about the closest I can come to finding something that most people can relate to. If it is entirely unsound as you claim, then I welcome correction in the form of a better analogy that is easier for everyone to relate to. Unfortunately for you, the only objection to my analogy comes from someone who isn't Orthodox, therefore can't be relied on as a reliable source of Orthodox doctrine.

The analogy is unsound because what is relevant to the conclusion is not analogous.

To illustrate. An apple is not analogous to an orange in taste because they have different properties relevant to taste, different chemicals make them taste differently.

A flag is not an icon, it is a symbol, the flag of the USA doesn't have the USA as its prototype. The flag symbolizes the USA.

If YOU said icons are symbolic only, like flags, your fellow Orthodox would declare that heretical, they reject the idea completely.

So your analogy is not analogous.

Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.

I will say this once more. You are not Orthodox and yet presume that you know more about Orthodox dogma than every single Orthodox Christian on this forum, a few of which are priests.

When you say "Icon veneration means that you do not experience Christ as present" and not one single Orthodox Christian agrees with you, then do you even think that it might even be a possibility that you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting our beliefs and practices?

You keep asking for a single stand alone "authority" on Orthodox teaching - there isn't, everything (Scripture, writings, prayers, liturgical traditions, icons, etc) all make one integrated whole. And if there were a single stand alone "authority", it wouldn't be a person who doesn't even hold the faith.

[Tzimis]

Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.

You are correct here. The icon isn't the idol you suggest it is and your own words prove it. Since Christ isn't present here and now we use the icon as a portal to him and the saints depicted. If he were here along with the saints the icon wouldn't be needed any longer. hence the second coming would be upon us.

[android]

Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.

You are correct here. The icon isn't the idle you suggest it is and your own words prove it. Since Christ isn't present here and now we use the icon as a portal to him and the saints depicted. If he were here along with the saints the icon wouldn't be needed any longer. hence the second coming would be upon us.

you could use alfred's argument to demonstrate that reading scripture demonstrates lack of faith in Christ's presence. why would you read scripture if Christ is present with you. will there be scripture in heaven? who knows, but i can't see the purpose it would serve at that point. do i still need a map after i've reached my destination?

in other words, alfred's argument holds no water (in addition to being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy).

St. John of Damascus:

"In times past, God, without body and form, could in no way be represented. But now, since God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I can depict that which is visible of God….[for Christ is "the image of the invisible God. (Col. 1:15.)] I do not venerate the matter but I venerate the Creator of matter, Who became matter for me, Who condescended to live in matter, and Who, through matter accomplished my salvation; I do not cease to respect the matter through which my salvation is accomplished."

[Tzimis]

Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.

You are correct here. The icon isn't the idle you suggest it is and your own words prove it. Since Christ isn't present here and now we use the icon as a portal to him and the saints depicted. If he were here along with the saints the icon wouldn't be needed any longer. hence the second coming would be upon us.

you could use alfred's argument to demonstrate that reading scripture demonstrates lack of faith in Christ's presence. why would you read scripture if Christ is present with you. will there be scripture in heaven? who knows, but i can't see the purpose it would serve at that point. do i still need a map after i've reached my destination?

in other words, alfred's argument holds no water (in addition to being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy).

St. John of Damascus:

"In times past, God, without body and form, could in no way be represented. But now, since God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I can depict that which is visible of God….[for Christ is "the image of the invisible God. (Col. 1:15.)] I do not venerate the matter but I venerate the Creator of matter, Who became matter for me, Who condescended to live in matter, and Who, through matter accomplished my salvation; I do not cease to respect the matter through which my salvation is accomplished."

Very well said android. Glad to have you with us and glad to see the spirit of god shine in you. 

[android]

Thanks Demetrios. Please pray for me.

[Ortho_cat]

Wow. I would have to say that the utmost restraint and patience has been exercised with respect to the moderation of Alfred's comments, yet he still couldn't control himself in a respectful manner. Sad, really.

[authio]

"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."

 



Oh no!

That train was clearly derailed by Eurasia.  We've always been at war with Eurasia.  Our troops are sacking their largest border city right now.  Eastasia, our eternally faithful allies, today join us in the battle against the bloodthirsty Eurasia. 
Death to Eurasia!
Long live Eastasia!
Long live Oceana!!

[Alfred Persson]

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...

Yup. That, and don't feed the troll.

Put this under your hat, you got lots of room there. People follow you out of morbid curiosity.

When I meet a moderator calling me a troll, I realize I've met boob who can look through a key hole with both  eyes.

A pin head whose brain, if put on top of a razor, would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.

If you don't think this Christian, you don't know Christ, He would have lots more things to say about you.

You, sir, have crossed the line of rudeness.

While discussion of greater discipline for you has been conducted, it was decided to continue to allow you to post here due to the following reasons:

1. Your poorly structured "arguments" display for all this site the lack of substance behind anyone holding your position.

2. You entertain many of us with your belief system.

The consequences of your  Post Moderation status has been explained to you previously.

+FrChris
Admin

Being called swine and troll by moderators was the last straw...


I shake the dust off my feet of this place. May the peace I brought, leave with me.

[sprtslvr1973]

AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity. 

Question: Is invisible church really anathema to visible church?

[Ortho_cat]

[sainthieu]

Al: I'm so glad you finally decided to shake the dust off your shoes. It's about time.

[TryingtoConvert]

LMFAO AT THIS THREAD.

Clearly this guy is worse than me, Christians arguing against Christians. Gotta love pride.

[Asteriktos]

LMFAO AT THIS THREAD.

Clearly this guy is worse than me, Christians arguing against Christians. Gotta love pride.

Thankfully atheists never argue with one another. Brb, I'm going to go watch atheists mock Sam Harris for embracing "spirituality" 

[mtgdude]

LMFAO AT THIS THREAD.

Clearly this guy is worse than me, Christians arguing against Christians. Gotta love pride.

Thankfully atheists never argue with one another. Brb, I'm going to go watch atheists mock Sam Harris for embracing "spirituality" 

An atheist who is a statist is just another theist.