, your statement "You need more?" is a cleaver use of an argumentative technique that gives the reader the impression that the points previously stated are adequate for answering the question.
unfortunately most of what you said is not even factual
. if your point of view is based on unsupported half truths and out right inaccurate claims then I wonder why I should listen to Anything you say?
anyway, I need to back up my claim that what you said isn't even factual. so here it is:
it was founded by Christ
no, Christ (Jesus) never founded any church. he simply roamed the land teaching Gods word, and other people just followed him.
Jesus never established Any sort of structured organisation for the teaching and following of Gods word.
taught all over the world by the Apostles
no, the Apostles taught Gods word.
if the teachings of the Orthodox Church are the pure, unaltered teachings of Gods word then this statement is true enough.
however this statement is NOT
evidence that the teachings of the Orthodox Church are
the pure, unaltered teachings of Gods word. there for to use it as such is a miss representation.
wrote the new Testament
sigh, we have been over this.
after a prolonged conversation on this particular view, here was my closing responce (I say closing because no-one answered my question):
just_some_guy: reply# 301
so the individual facts I tend to agree with (unless I misread?)
but I fail to see your bottom line. how does the origin of the Bible (or its individual books) relate to the purity of the teachings of the Orthodox church?
and is the oldest church in the world
what about "the church of God which is at Corinth" (quoted from first 1 Corinthians).
does the Orthodox Church predate this Church? since this church was around during
the time of the Apostles then I highly doubt it.
AND, in 1Cor 5:1 you will read "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans [...]". Whats this? even a Church all the way back then was less than pure! *Gasp*.
Not only where they not pure, they where doing things that NOT EVEN THE PAGANS DID
so your telling me that a Church that had Direct access to Jesus and his Apostles strayed from the straight and narrow, yet the Orthodox Church has some how remained pure for 2000 years. (any you wonder why I have my doubts)Biro
, I do not believe that you would willingly lie in order to win an argument, but isn't that worse? because that means you actually believe what you are saying here. if such blatant inaccurate "facts" are what you call evidence then I wonder why either of us even bother here...Pikhristos Aftonf
anyone who makes a reply of that length either just did a massive copy and past, or put some effort into their responce.
since this is that latter of the two, thank you for your time.
this first 2 thirds of your responce is a simple history lesson. because it is all just a statement of Fact I have nothing negative to say about it.
the final third however puts forward some flawed reasoning that is then used to justify your final conclusion.
so would you rather follow a consistent faith that existed in documents from the first century, or the interpretations made by schismatics whose rebellions led to the breaking away from apostolic traditions?
depends who is teaching the Truth.
because this is stated as a question, then you are not technically saying anything wrong. however the questions is designed to give an obvious answer that can then be attached to your preferred conclusion. in legal terms this is called a 'leading question'
and your end conclusion is based on the assumption that the Orthodox Church is "consistant" with the early teachings.
the apostles are direct students of Christ, and the early church fathers are direct students of the apostles, it is an unbroken lineage.
unbroken? maybe. perfect? far from it. ever heard of the game "Chinese whispers". no matter how "unbroken" the line is, some how the end result is still different from the start.
unlike protestantism where there is much disagreement and the like and no real defined faith and its origins.
here you make the assumption that I would feel some need to back up Protestantism. in fact I would walk away from protestantism just as fast as I would the Orthodox Church. so feel free to bad mouth other denominations all you like, but it doesn't really work towards building up the reputation of the Orthodox Church.
personally i would rather the faith of the fathers, the faith of the apostles, the faith in Christ as taught by the earliest believers as recorded in the God-inspired writings
lol, I totally agree.
especially the part about the "God-inspired writings".
so what evidence does protestantism have of any apostle supporting their oft-contradicting and mostly non-traditional interpretations of the Scriptures?
once again, you talk down on the Protestants in order to build up the Orthodox Church.
and the "oft-contradicting and mostly non-traditional" argument is flawed. the Roman Catholic Churches teachings are not contradictory, and they are Very tradition orientated in their teaching meathods. they are in many cases Wrong! but that is beside the point according to your reasoning.
we the Orthodox have the writings of the Apostles, the writings of the students of the apostles and the council of hundreds of God-fearing bishops
firstly, shouldn't ALL Churches have "the writings of the Apostles and the writings of the students of the apostles"?
and secondly, doesn't the Roman Catholic Church also have "the council of hundreds of God-fearing bishops" (and the Pope)?
I think the faith is pretty safe down at the Orthodox church
and here is your final conclusion. since I have exposed the flaws in your reasoning behind this, then the Final conclusion is still in question.
Second Chance: Well, I do not think that anybody on this thread, except for you, is trying to validate any answer. We do not have a problem;
well if you think your correct, and I think I am correct, and neither of us has a problem with that. then we should all just stop this thread here and get on with our lives.
you know... unless of course you want to challenge your / the oppositions point of view? but hey, that 'get on with our lives' option sounds pretty tempting.
you want to have sex outside marriage and you want others to agree with you so that somehow your conscience will then be clear
its not that I want others to agree with me, I know I can't please everyone. so there for there will always be both someone who agrees with me and someone who does not.
its more to the point that I don't want to be wrong. and by pitting one view against the other then I can see witch one stands the test.
Why don't you try to find what God wants you to do and be?
isn't that what I am doing here? trying to find the truth of what God wants? and not just listening to what the Church or the World wants.