OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 12:17:05 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do the Orthodox disobey God in their practice?  (Read 10042 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #135 on: July 15, 2011, 05:18:35 PM »

This thread resembles one of Alfreds more and more each day. I love how those people who are not in the Church think they can accurately say how the Church was back in the day.

Agreed. At times like these, I think of the prayer before Communion, "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies", and regret getting involved.

I love my enemies, and pray for those who persecute me.  
But you are my brother in Christ right?  Not my enemy.  

I mean I may be your enemy and we may disagree on dogma setup through 2000 years, but we both agree that Yeshua is the son of God who died for our sins right?

I disagree with the EO teachings that contradict what Christ said.  But that doesn't make us enemies.  Do you see what church dogma does?

Our true enemy is Lucifer, who teaches us to follow our own will rather than God's will.  It's "Do what thy wilt vs. Thy will be done".

Don't make me your enemy over some dogma setup by some dudes through 2000 years.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #136 on: July 15, 2011, 05:18:35 PM »

This thread resembles one of Alfreds more and more each day. I love how those people who are not in the Church think they can accurately say how the Church was back in the day.

Agreed. At times like these, I think of the prayer before Communion, "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies", and regret getting involved.

Just one other thing, my last post was because I think that you dislike me as an enemy.

If you think I am God's enemy, you are very mistaken.  I've done nothing but quote God.  It's the Eastern Orthodox here who are making excuses of why they can disobey him.

Do not call any man "Rabbi, Father, Master"

I try to serve God in my life.   Don't mistake the fact that I'm saying a few things against the practices of Eastern Orthodox church that I am a sudden enemy of God.

Remember, the Eastern Orthodox church has TONS of fights in its history.   Plenty of schisms, plenty of ugliness.

Even on this board

Easter Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox
Pro-Ecumenism
Anti-Ecumenism
New Calendar
Old Calendar

Are they all enemies of God because they disagree?  please don't label me as such, even though I feel your content was more personal.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,839


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #137 on: July 15, 2011, 07:21:20 PM »

Quote
What about GOD CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS

He could, but He wont. God is ultimately holy, ultimately just, and ultimately correct. So are the laws he set up. Some laws dont apply to Him directly "dont murder" as the life belongs to Him in the first place and he can take it, or command others to do so, or "bring no other Gods before me" because He is God. However that being said, if God breaks His own law that would apply to Him, like abrogating His promises when we filfilled our part according to His holy word, (a la Salvation), he would not be holy, nor just. So in a manner of speaking He holds Himself up to His own rules. Afterall, God cant abide sinfulness, because he is holy...right?


primuspilus
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 07:23:44 PM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,194


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #138 on: July 15, 2011, 07:45:22 PM »

Yeshuaisiam, you are outside of the Church, even if you were at one point part of the Church. The Arians and Nestorians were once part of the Church, but their own personal interpretaions led them astray, they did not follow the teachings of the Apostles or the Tradition of the Church. The Tradition is not something to be taken lightly, nor is the authority of the Apostle Paul, who many Church Fathers revere, early Fathers such as St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp who were both diciples of St. John.

Even disciples of the Apostle John - the disciple whom Jesus loved - admitted that St. Paul had authority!

Yes, there are divisions in the Church, but there are divisions because some men decided that they knew better than the Apostles who were appointed by Jesus Himself. That there are divisions doesn't mean that we are not the true Church, just that we are all human and prone to err. By your logic the anabaptists can not be correct since there are divisions in their church. Divisions only mean that we are human and do not submit ourselves fully to God's will, they should teach us to stop relying on our own intuitions and rely on God through the instistution He gave to us - the Church - through which we may learn to subdue our passions and reach full union with God.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #139 on: July 15, 2011, 07:56:12 PM »

I seek Orthodox Christianity.  I seek the right way (by definition).
You think you're going to find it, though, when you're the one setting all the rules regarding what IS Orthodox? You don't want orthodoxy; you want a Christianity that fits the image you've already made. That, my friend, is probably a much worse graven image than any icon we can make.

BTW, you still haven't engaged any of the counter-arguments against your position. Ridiculing them often enough isn't going to make them ridiculous.

So you'd rather trust someone that defines Orthodoxy like a "saint" who had a son who slept with his on mom?  Then the saint put his own son & wife to death?  I mean can somebody say "Jerry Springer on steroids"?

Gee stinks that I go off my own intuition being a loyal husband and a parent to 5 children.  :OP
Dodging the rebuttal with such a gross reductio ad absurdum is no way to engage a rebuttal of your position.

How about, for instance, my argument that rejection of the teaching of the Apostle Paul is rejection of Christ Himself?

How about my argument about when did God say that rejecting anything of the Apostle Paul was rejecting Christ?
Perhaps we should follow Paul's lead at first and start murdering Christians?
Face it, that's made up nonsense.

Yeshua never gave Paul that type of authority, of course, unless written by Paul.
It's actually quite simple. Jesus made Peter the chief of the Apostles, and Peter recognized Paul as a fellow Apostle, even in his own epistles.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 08:35:45 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #140 on: July 15, 2011, 08:23:58 PM »

This thread resembles one of Alfreds more and more each day. I love how those people who are not in the Church think they can accurately say how the Church was back in the day.

Agreed. At times like these, I think of the prayer before Communion, "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies", and regret getting involved.

I love my enemies, and pray for those who persecute me.   
But you are my brother in Christ right?  Not my enemy. 

I mean I may be your enemy and we may disagree on dogma setup through 2000 years, but we both agree that Yeshua is the son of God who died for our sins right?

I disagree with the EO teachings that contradict what Christ said.  But that doesn't make us enemies.  Do you see what church dogma does?

Our true enemy is Lucifer, who teaches us to follow our own will rather than God's will.  It's "Do what thy wilt vs. Thy will be done".

Don't make me your enemy over some dogma setup by some dudes through 2000 years.

You are not my enemy. I have no negative feelings towards you personally.

Church dogma protects the truth from being distorted. EO teachings do not contradict Christ's words because the EOC is the Body of Christ. Contradiction is impossible. If there is a contradiction, it is a misunderstanding of Christ on your part, not an error on the Church's part.

To put not too fine a point on it:

Apostles + Church Fathers + Scripture + 2000 years of practice > your opinion

When you ignore Church dogma, you are doing thy will rather than God's, because God lives in the Church and God speaks through the Church.

Considering the New Testament, the Fathers, and Church practice since the literal beginning, is overflowing with examples of men being called "father", you are wrong. Unless you are presumptuous enough to judge the Apostles (which you are, and you have), then God help you.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 08:31:27 PM by bogdan » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #141 on: July 15, 2011, 08:27:26 PM »

Do not call any man "Rabbi, Father, Master"

The Scriptures are meaningless when interpreted outside its context, that being the Church. The Church says it does not mean what you think it means.

I try to serve God in my life.   Don't mistake the fact that I'm saying a few things against the practices of Eastern Orthodox church that I am a sudden enemy of God.

I don't know if you're an enemy of God or not. I can't see your heart. But Saul didn't think he was God's enemy when he was rejecting Church dogma.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 08:28:39 PM by bogdan » Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #142 on: July 15, 2011, 09:00:55 PM »

Wrong.  Look up the word "likeness" in Hebrew.  God also gave special permission for the Cherubim.   I don't know if I can post any Jewish information here about the likeness, things haven't gone so well for me in the past when I give out factual Jewish info.

Post it to me privately if you don't think it will go down well on the board.

Quote
The Greek is unimportant right now.  That's another topic and diverts sorry I'll get off it.

It's not unimportant. The text you quoted at the beginning of this thread was an English translation of a Greek original.

Quote
Do you bow and touch the floor saying "Master Bless"?  If you do you are calling him "Master".

I speak with my bishop in Greek, so I've never called him 'Master'. However, if I were to address him with the English word 'Master', I would not be using the word prohibited in the Gospel - in this context being a translation of the word 'despota' - but you've repeatedly chosen to ignore this, so until you respond to my actual argument I'll let the matter rest.
Logged
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #143 on: July 15, 2011, 09:03:12 PM »

This thread is the best example of unmitigated, unequivocal and absolute theological pwnage I've yet seen on this board.

Good work, dudes.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,194


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #144 on: July 15, 2011, 09:07:17 PM »

This thread is the best example of unmitigated, unequivocal and absolute theological pwnage I've yet seen on this board.

Good work, dudes.

They have been pretty good, haven't they (I don't include myself here, as I really have not contributed to this conversation and my understanding of theology is no where near on par with the other gentlemen on this board). But I do agree that this thread has been pretty good, perhaps its all the practice everybody got during the past months dealing with Alfred, TtC, and others.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #145 on: July 15, 2011, 09:26:41 PM »

I speak with my bishop in Greek, so I've never called him 'Master'. However, if I were to address him with the English word 'Master', I would not be using the word prohibited in the Gospel - in this context being a translation of the word 'despota' - but you've repeatedly chosen to ignore this, so until you respond to my actual argument I'll let the matter rest.

Good point!

klēthēte kathēgētai eis kathēgētēs christos, it says in Greek. I don't see despota anywhere in that sentence. (But I do see that Christ was an accomplished alliterist.)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 09:28:40 PM by bogdan » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #146 on: July 15, 2011, 09:27:44 PM »

Quote
What about GOD CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS

He could, but He wont. God is ultimately holy, ultimately just, and ultimately correct. So are the laws he set up. Some laws dont apply to Him directly "dont murder" as the life belongs to Him in the first place and he can take it, or command others to do so, or "bring no other Gods before me" because He is God. However that being said, if God breaks His own law that would apply to Him, like abrogating His promises when we filfilled our part according to His holy word, (a la Salvation), he would not be holy, nor just. So in a manner of speaking He holds Himself up to His own rules. Afterall, God cant abide sinfulness, because he is holy...right?


primuspilus

According to that probable old liturgic text:

Quote from: 2 Timothy 2-13

This is a faithful saying:

      For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
       If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him.
      If we deny Him,
He also will deny us.
       If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
      He cannot deny Himself.

As to what God cannot do, He cannot deny Himself nor His love for us and thus interfere with our free will. He can give us leprosy, but He can't cause our reaction to it.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #147 on: July 16, 2011, 06:23:29 PM »

Yeshuaisiam, you are outside of the Church, even if you were at one point part of the Church. The Arians and Nestorians were once part of the Church, but their own personal interpretaions led them astray, they did not follow the teachings of the Apostles or the Tradition of the Church. The Tradition is not something to be taken lightly, nor is the authority of the Apostle Paul, who many Church Fathers revere, early Fathers such as St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp who were both diciples of St. John.

Even disciples of the Apostle John - the disciple whom Jesus loved - admitted that St. Paul had authority!

Yes, there are divisions in the Church, but there are divisions because some men decided that they knew better than the Apostles who were appointed by Jesus Himself. That there are divisions doesn't mean that we are not the true Church, just that we are all human and prone to err. By your logic the anabaptists can not be correct since there are divisions in their church. Divisions only mean that we are human and do not submit ourselves fully to God's will, they should teach us to stop relying on our own intuitions and rely on God through the instistution He gave to us - the Church - through which we may learn to subdue our passions and reach full union with God.

Well this is true partially.  It was by the nature of your statement that sounded as if people who are not practicing Orthodoxy have no means of being critical / educated enough to make statements against Orthodoxy.

As far as the divisions in the church, it is in different context with the Anabaptists.  Let me give you an example, from the creed.  "I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

Who claims to be the "one holy and apostolic church".   Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and many other groups.

The Anabaptists make no claim of "the one true church".   They believe in what the scripture says. 
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.

That's why I do not claim the Anabaptists are "the ONE true church".

I point out the irony, vexing, and vain nature of the statement.  Every group who claims to be the "one true church" is stuck in their own beliefs and think the others are wrong.

If I can define the Anabaptists without speaking for them, they are a group of Christians that basically say "We are not protestant, we are not catholic, we follow the teachings of our early Christian brethren".   

The divisions among the groups are not Schisms.   They are divisions of "ways of living".   Some believe in the Old orders, medium orders, and new orders on acceptance of things that you bring into your lifestyle.   Some are communal living as early Christians, some don't work with technology....

It's not divisions in dogma in the "one true church".   

Basically they don't care about "the one true church", they care about following Christ as the early Christians and to leave all the fluff behind.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #148 on: July 16, 2011, 06:23:29 PM »

I seek Orthodox Christianity.  I seek the right way (by definition).
You think you're going to find it, though, when you're the one setting all the rules regarding what IS Orthodox? You don't want orthodoxy; you want a Christianity that fits the image you've already made. That, my friend, is probably a much worse graven image than any icon we can make.

BTW, you still haven't engaged any of the counter-arguments against your position. Ridiculing them often enough isn't going to make them ridiculous.

So you'd rather trust someone that defines Orthodoxy like a "saint" who had a son who slept with his on mom?  Then the saint put his own son & wife to death?  I mean can somebody say "Jerry Springer on steroids"?

Gee stinks that I go off my own intuition being a loyal husband and a parent to 5 children.  :OP
Dodging the rebuttal with such a gross reductio ad absurdum is no way to engage a rebuttal of your position.

How about, for instance, my argument that rejection of the teaching of the Apostle Paul is rejection of Christ Himself?

How about my argument about when did God say that rejecting anything of the Apostle Paul was rejecting Christ?
Perhaps we should follow Paul's lead at first and start murdering Christians?
Face it, that's made up nonsense.

Yeshua never gave Paul that type of authority, of course, unless written by Paul.
It's actually quite simple. Jesus made Peter the chief of the Apostles, and Peter recognized Paul as a fellow Apostle, even in his own epistles.

Well this argument strays from my point.  If you want to start a new thread on it, ask who wrote that history.   Luke wrote acts.  Luke was who's disciple?  Bingo, Paul's.   

However, this strays from the point of the thread.   Of course that's when people then swirl around saying "So you say that most of the New Testament is wrong then".  Absolutely not.  I'm just saying that I am careful around the teachings of Paul & his disciple.    Read the stories about the thieves on the cross in Luke, and then in the other gospels.  In the other gospels, they INSULT Christ.  ONLY in Luke does the story come of "death bed" salvation.   

This is NOT my contradiction.   This is a contradiction of Luke vs. 2 other sources.

So yes, I get very careful when the gospels of Luke and the writings of Paul are used.   They do have contradictions.

One of which is the main excuse for the use of the word "Father" to a priest.  "I am as your father as I've birthed you into Christianity"....
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #149 on: July 16, 2011, 06:23:29 PM »

This thread resembles one of Alfreds more and more each day. I love how those people who are not in the Church think they can accurately say how the Church was back in the day.

Agreed. At times like these, I think of the prayer before Communion, "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies", and regret getting involved.

I love my enemies, and pray for those who persecute me.   
But you are my brother in Christ right?  Not my enemy. 

I mean I may be your enemy and we may disagree on dogma setup through 2000 years, but we both agree that Yeshua is the son of God who died for our sins right?

I disagree with the EO teachings that contradict what Christ said.  But that doesn't make us enemies.  Do you see what church dogma does?

Our true enemy is Lucifer, who teaches us to follow our own will rather than God's will.  It's "Do what thy wilt vs. Thy will be done".

Don't make me your enemy over some dogma setup by some dudes through 2000 years.

You are not my enemy. I have no negative feelings towards you personally.

Church dogma protects the truth from being distorted. EO teachings do not contradict Christ's words because the EOC is the Body of Christ. Contradiction is impossible. If there is a contradiction, it is a misunderstanding of Christ on your part, not an error on the Church's part.

To put not too fine a point on it:

Apostles + Church Fathers + Scripture + 2000 years of practice > your opinion

When you ignore Church dogma, you are doing thy will rather than God's, because God lives in the Church and God speaks through the Church.

Considering the New Testament, the Fathers, and Church practice since the literal beginning, is overflowing with examples of men being called "father", you are wrong. Unless you are presumptuous enough to judge the Apostles (which you are, and you have), then God help you.

Thank you.

This is where I would say though, that "This is what the EO church wants you to believe".   "If you do the will of the church, you are doing God's will".   

I agree with your formula, all those sources are greater than MY opinion.

But
Apostles + Early church brethren + 2000 years of history + the Earth + the Galaxy + anything <<<< to the infinite <<<<< than GOD

GOD said "Do NOT call any man Father, Rabbi, or Master".

The apostles were mere men, and they by far had no perfect life or sinless life.  Peter denied Christ.  Paul murdered Christians at first.   But we have no example of Matthew who recorded that saying "father, master, or Rabbi".
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #150 on: July 16, 2011, 06:23:29 PM »

I speak with my bishop in Greek, so I've never called him 'Master'. However, if I were to address him with the English word 'Master', I would not be using the word prohibited in the Gospel - in this context being a translation of the word 'despota' - but you've repeatedly chosen to ignore this, so until you respond to my actual argument I'll let the matter rest.

Good point!

klēthēte kathēgētai eis kathēgētēs christos, it says in Greek. I don't see despota anywhere in that sentence. (But I do see that Christ was an accomplished alliterist.)

Actually I see this as a bad point.  Unless the author says that OCA Orthodox Christians are not Eastern Orthodox.   They certainly call their bishops "MASTER".
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #151 on: July 16, 2011, 06:23:29 PM »

This thread is the best example of unmitigated, unequivocal and absolute theological pwnage I've yet seen on this board.

Good work, dudes.

I guess you see it as pwnage of God's words.

Do not call any man Father, Master, or Rabbi.

That's my point.  The EO christians pwnage & Disobey God's commands.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #152 on: July 16, 2011, 06:23:29 PM »

This thread is the best example of unmitigated, unequivocal and absolute theological pwnage I've yet seen on this board.

Good work, dudes.

Just one other thing.

I've posted a photo of several clergy bowing down before an image made in the likeness of things in heaven.

It's very simple and CLEAR to see that.  They are all in a semi-circle BOWING to an IMAGE of a LIKENESS of things in heaven.

That's direct disobedience.    Even if the image "represents" the person, its still an image.   Unless we want to get delusional and start saying that the icon IS the person.

I see absolutely no "ownage" here.  I see people making excuses, because reality may just be too hard to face.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #153 on: July 16, 2011, 06:23:29 PM »

Wrong.  Look up the word "likeness" in Hebrew.  God also gave special permission for the Cherubim.   I don't know if I can post any Jewish information here about the likeness, things haven't gone so well for me in the past when I give out factual Jewish info.

Post it to me privately if you don't think it will go down well on the board.

Quote
The Greek is unimportant right now.  That's another topic and diverts sorry I'll get off it.

It's not unimportant. The text you quoted at the beginning of this thread was an English translation of a Greek original.

Quote
Do you bow and touch the floor saying "Master Bless"?  If you do you are calling him "Master".

I speak with my bishop in Greek, so I've never called him 'Master'. However, if I were to address him with the English word 'Master', I would not be using the word prohibited in the Gospel - in this context being a translation of the word 'despota' - but you've repeatedly chosen to ignore this, so until you respond to my actual argument I'll let the matter rest.

So if you go back to the Greek are you saying Christ said to not call any man "Despota" and you do it?

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/Divine_Liturgy/3.Opening.htm  In the last few lines on this link, "Master means Despota".

Do not call any man "master" which is "Despota" in Greek?  I'm not understanding your point?

Why not "brother, or brethren", which is exactly what GOD told you to call each other?
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #154 on: July 16, 2011, 06:23:43 PM »

This thread is the best example of unmitigated, unequivocal and absolute theological pwnage I've yet seen on this board.

Good work, dudes.

They have been pretty good, haven't they (I don't include myself here, as I really have not contributed to this conversation and my understanding of theology is no where near on par with the other gentlemen on this board). But I do agree that this thread has been pretty good, perhaps its all the practice everybody got during the past months dealing with Alfred, TtC, and others.

I really don't see it.  I mean its fun to pat yourself on the back when others think you did a good job.

All that was posted are examples of where apostles disobeyed Christ. ?
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,194


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #155 on: July 16, 2011, 10:48:08 PM »

This thread is the best example of unmitigated, unequivocal and absolute theological pwnage I've yet seen on this board.

Good work, dudes.

They have been pretty good, haven't they (I don't include myself here, as I really have not contributed to this conversation and my understanding of theology is no where near on par with the other gentlemen on this board). But I do agree that this thread has been pretty good, perhaps its all the practice everybody got during the past months dealing with Alfred, TtC, and others.

I really don't see it.  I mean its fun to pat yourself on the back when others think you did a good job.

All that was posted are examples of where apostles disobeyed Christ. ?


Perhaps you should actually read my posts to see what I am saying. First of all, I was not patting myself on the back as I clearly stated I did not include myself with what akimori makoto said. Second, in my other post you clearly miss the point I was trying to make, which was...

Yeshuaisiam, you are outside of the Church, even if you were at one point part of the Church. The Arians and Nestorians were once part of the Church, but their own personal interpretaions led them astray, they did not follow the teachings of the Apostles or the Tradition of the Church. The Tradition is not something to be taken lightly, nor is the authority of the Apostle Paul, who many Church Fathers revere, early Fathers such as St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp who were both diciples of St. John.

Even disciples of the Apostle John - the disciple whom Jesus loved - admitted that St. Paul had authority!

Yes, there are divisions in the Church, but there are divisions because some men decided that they knew better than the Apostles who were appointed by Jesus Himself. That there are divisions doesn't mean that we are not the true Church, just that we are all human and prone to err. By your logic the anabaptists can not be correct since there are divisions in their church. Divisions only mean that we are human and do not submit ourselves fully to God's will, they should teach us to stop relying on our own intuitions and rely on God through the instistution He gave to us - the Church - through which we may learn to subdue our passions and reach full union with God.


... three fold. 1) being that just because you were in the Church does not mean that you can rightly criticize the Church as even the Arians and Nestorians were once part of the Church and yet they were led to heresy by their own interpretations as a warning for you not to fall into heresy with your proclomations. 2) being that even disciples of St. John the Apostle say that we should listen to Paul...

Quote from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians
Quote

These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything
upon myself, but because ye have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one,
can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you,
accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive.
And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to
be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being
followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, "is the
mother of us all."

Quote from St. Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians
Quote
I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person. For though I am bound for His
name, I am not yet perfect in Jesus Christ. For now I begin to be a disciple, and I speak to you
as my fellow-servants. For it was needful for me to have been admonished by you in faith,
exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in
regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that ye would run together in
accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ does all things according to the will of
the Father, as He Himself declares in a certain place, "I do always those things that please
Him."Wherefore it behoves us also to live according to the will of God in Christ, and to imitate
Him as Paul did. For, says he, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."

ibid
Quote
Since also "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." Such, then, are ye, having been taught by such instructors, Paul the Christ-bearer, and Timothy the most faithful.
... so don't just automatically throw everything Paul (or Luke for being Paul's disciple) out the window - disciples of the other Apostles very obviously think Paul has some merit. And 3) divisions do not mean the lack of the true Church, just that we as men should learn to lean on Christ and the Apostles of His that He set up to run His Church, instead of our own understanding.

Quote from Proverbs 3:5 KJV
Quote
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

 The Anabaptist may not claim to be the one true church, but they sure do act like it, what with shunning and excommunication, also expecting to their children to marry other Anabaptists.

They have plenty of schisms such as Mennonites and the Amish which vary by belief and also

Quote from Wikipedia
Quote

In Poland and the Netherlands, certain of the Anabaptists denied the Trinity, hence the saying that a Socinian was a learned Baptist (see Socinus.) With these Menno and his followers refused to hold communion. Italian Anabaptism had an anti-trinitarian core but was a part of Anabaptism in general. In his work, Stella showed that movements' connections to Neapolitan spiritualism, (especially Juan de Valdés), but also made the connection to the Marranos as well.

Seems like a schism over dogma to me.

If I were to leave an Anabaptist church for a Baptist, or Methodist church they would still see me as being outside of the church and I would be excommunicated and shunned. They may not vocally claim to be the one true church but their actions do speak that they think they are.


If I can define the Anabaptists without speaking for them, they are a group of Christians that basically say "We are not protestant, we are not catholic, we follow the teachings of our early Christian brethren".   


Sounds a lot like plenty of other Protestant groups...

Basically they don't care about "the one true church", they care about following Christ as the early Christians and to leave all the fluff behind.

Yes they care so much about following Christ as the early Christians did that if you do not believe the way they do you are wrong. Also, they left all that fluff behind as is evidenced by how they would even go so far as to re-baptize anybody they felt did not have a true Christian initiation - hence the name Anabaptist, literally meaning those who re-baptize - this includes those Protestants who practiced infant baptism and even converts from the RCC.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how you can seriously make the claims you do, about the EO, the Anabaptist, and even St. Paul. You sound a lot like those people who think that the early Christians didn't even believe Jesus was God until Paul came in and started changing the whole religion.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #156 on: July 16, 2011, 10:54:58 PM »

This thread resembles one of Alfreds more and more each day. I love how those people who are not in the Church think they can accurately say how the Church was back in the day.

Agreed. At times like these, I think of the prayer before Communion, "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies", and regret getting involved.

I love my enemies, and pray for those who persecute me.   
But you are my brother in Christ right?  Not my enemy. 

I mean I may be your enemy and we may disagree on dogma setup through 2000 years, but we both agree that Yeshua is the son of God who died for our sins right?

I disagree with the EO teachings that contradict what Christ said.  But that doesn't make us enemies.  Do you see what church dogma does?

Our true enemy is Lucifer, who teaches us to follow our own will rather than God's will.  It's "Do what thy wilt vs. Thy will be done".

Don't make me your enemy over some dogma setup by some dudes through 2000 years.

You are not my enemy. I have no negative feelings towards you personally.

Church dogma protects the truth from being distorted. EO teachings do not contradict Christ's words because the EOC is the Body of Christ. Contradiction is impossible. If there is a contradiction, it is a misunderstanding of Christ on your part, not an error on the Church's part.

To put not too fine a point on it:

Apostles + Church Fathers + Scripture + 2000 years of practice > your opinion

When you ignore Church dogma, you are doing thy will rather than God's, because God lives in the Church and God speaks through the Church.

Considering the New Testament, the Fathers, and Church practice since the literal beginning, is overflowing with examples of men being called "father", you are wrong. Unless you are presumptuous enough to judge the Apostles (which you are, and you have), then God help you.

Thank you.

This is where I would say though, that "This is what the EO church wants you to believe".   "If you do the will of the church, you are doing God's will".   

I agree with your formula, all those sources are greater than MY opinion.

But
Apostles + Early church brethren + 2000 years of history + the Earth + the Galaxy + anything <<<< to the infinite <<<<< than GOD

GOD said "Do NOT call any man Father, Rabbi, or Master".

The apostles were mere men, and they by far had no perfect life or sinless life.  Peter denied Christ.  Paul murdered Christians at first.   But we have no example of Matthew who recorded that saying "father, master, or Rabbi".

Those errors of Peter and Paul did not make it into Holy Tradition. Calling priests "Father" has. The Holy Spirit lives in the Church and maintains and directs the Holy Tradition.

Individuals may err, but they will fall away like chaff. "Father" is not an error.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #157 on: July 16, 2011, 10:56:43 PM »

I speak with my bishop in Greek, so I've never called him 'Master'. However, if I were to address him with the English word 'Master', I would not be using the word prohibited in the Gospel - in this context being a translation of the word 'despota' - but you've repeatedly chosen to ignore this, so until you respond to my actual argument I'll let the matter rest.

Good point!

klēthēte kathēgētai eis kathēgētēs christos, it says in Greek. I don't see despota anywhere in that sentence. (But I do see that Christ was an accomplished alliterist.)

Actually I see this as a bad point.  Unless the author says that OCA Orthodox Christians are not Eastern Orthodox.   They certainly call their bishops "MASTER".

So if one of King James' translators had decided to translate "Kathegetai" as "Lord" (a homonym), it would suddenly be okay in your mind to call bishops "Master"? Come on.

The Bible is certainly useful in any language, but if we're going to get into the nitty gritty of individual words like this, we go back to the original language. That is how exegesis works.

Just because we translate "Despota" and "Kathegetai" as "Master" does not mean they are both the same thing. It means English has no useful distinct word to represent the difference. This is the reality of translation. This is why it is lunacy to base one's fine dogma about specific words on translations.

You're being just as silly as Alfred was a few months ago when we were arguing about "word" versus "Word". This is what Protestants have to do when they reject Holy Tradition: they scrape their beliefs out of the dirt and out of word books. Give me the Holy Spirit any day.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 11:05:34 PM by bogdan » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #158 on: July 16, 2011, 11:40:18 PM »

I seek Orthodox Christianity.  I seek the right way (by definition).
You think you're going to find it, though, when you're the one setting all the rules regarding what IS Orthodox? You don't want orthodoxy; you want a Christianity that fits the image you've already made. That, my friend, is probably a much worse graven image than any icon we can make.

BTW, you still haven't engaged any of the counter-arguments against your position. Ridiculing them often enough isn't going to make them ridiculous.

So you'd rather trust someone that defines Orthodoxy like a "saint" who had a son who slept with his on mom?  Then the saint put his own son & wife to death?  I mean can somebody say "Jerry Springer on steroids"?

Gee stinks that I go off my own intuition being a loyal husband and a parent to 5 children.  :OP
Dodging the rebuttal with such a gross reductio ad absurdum is no way to engage a rebuttal of your position.

How about, for instance, my argument that rejection of the teaching of the Apostle Paul is rejection of Christ Himself?

How about my argument about when did God say that rejecting anything of the Apostle Paul was rejecting Christ?
Perhaps we should follow Paul's lead at first and start murdering Christians?
Face it, that's made up nonsense.

Yeshua never gave Paul that type of authority, of course, unless written by Paul.
It's actually quite simple. Jesus made Peter the chief of the Apostles, and Peter recognized Paul as a fellow Apostle, even in his own epistles.

Well this argument strays from my point.  If you want to start a new thread on it, ask who wrote that history.   Luke wrote acts.  Luke was who's disciple?  Bingo, Paul's.
Nice dodge, but in the end, my defense of Paul's apostleship is central to this debate.
1.  You assert that Jesus told us to call no man "father" or "master".
2.  Others here have pointed out how St. Paul taught otherwise.
3.  You dismiss St. Paul by...
     a.  Pointing out how he persecuted Christians (never mind that he did so BEFORE he repented and actually became a Christian)
     b.  Pointing out how St. Paul apparently contradicted Jesus
     c.  Essentially, by denying his apostleship
4.  I assert that you cannot dismiss St. Paul because he was recognized as a bona fide Apostle by no less than the other Apostles.

Now you try to dismiss the writings of St. Luke (his Gospel and his Acts of the Apostles) because he was a disciple of St. Paul, but if St. Paul cannot be dismissed from this argument because of his recognition by the other Apostles, neither can you dismiss St. Luke. In fact, St. Luke is probably the best refutation of your argument since he did so much to present a detailed historical account of Jesus' life and ministry and later of the works of the Apostles that he can't be considered merely a disciple of St. Paul. Through his thorough, investigative, and objective account, St. Luke does an outstanding job of showing us how St. Paul taught exactly what St. Peter and the other eleven of Christ's disciples taught.

BTW, you overlooked my point that St. Peter wrote in his own epistles a recognition of St. Paul's apostolic teaching, putting Paul's epistles on the same pedestal as the rest of Scripture. (2 Peter 3:14-16)
« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 12:02:32 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #159 on: July 16, 2011, 11:48:06 PM »

Has this thread been mentioned yet?  I would hope so... our memories aren't that short yet...?  Maybe I should go back and read the entire thread first... on the other hand... ugh...  Wink
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #160 on: July 16, 2011, 11:53:32 PM »

But
Apostles + Early church brethren + 2000 years of history + the Earth + the Galaxy + anything <<<< to the infinite <<<<< than GOD

GOD said "Do NOT call any man Father, Rabbi, or Master".

The apostles were mere men, and they by far had no perfect life or sinless life.  Peter denied Christ.  Paul murdered Christians at first.   But we have no example of Matthew who recorded that saying "father, master, or Rabbi".
But Jesus never wrote anything that got passed on to posterity. We would therefore have no record of Jesus saying "call no man father" if one of His Apostles had never written it down. We do know that much of what Jesus said wasn't recorded in the Gospels, so why did St. Matthew record the "call no man father" statement yet not record other things Jesus said? If you argue that Matthew recorded this command because he realized its importance, then you essentially admit that you follow this command because of St. Matthew's authority. Why, then, do you not follow the equal authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul? OTOH, if St. Matthew had NOT recorded Christ's "call no man father" command, we would likely have never known of it, and you wouldn't be advocating such strict obedience to this command today.

Therefore, everything in your argument depends on how you relate to the authority of the Apostle Matthew as opposed to the authority of the other Apostles. You're picking and choosing which of those Apostles you will obey and which you will not obey. THAT, my friend, is the very definition of heresy.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 12:10:51 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #161 on: July 17, 2011, 01:13:41 AM »

This thread is the best example of unmitigated, unequivocal and absolute theological pwnage I've yet seen on this board.

Good work, dudes.

Just one other thing.

I've posted a photo of several clergy bowing down before an image made in the likeness of things in heaven.

It's very simple and CLEAR to see that.  They are all in a semi-circle BOWING to an IMAGE of a LIKENESS of things in heaven.

That's direct disobedience.    Even if the image "represents" the person, its still an image.   Unless we want to get delusional and start saying that the icon IS the person.

I see absolutely no "ownage" here.  I see people making excuses, because reality may just be too hard to face.

Do you wear clothing spun of two fabrics?

Do you eat pork?

Our Lord said not one iota would pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass away.

How do you cope with these "CLEAR" commandments?

What is "clear"? What is "unclear"? What is metaphorical? What is literal? These are not easy questions that can be answered with the degree of self-assuredness you have displayed in your attempt at exegesis of the passage the subject of this conversation.

You have not addressed a single point which has been put to you but have continued to repeat the same idea as a mantra.

The Lord also forbade vain repetition ...
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #162 on: July 17, 2011, 06:16:35 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



I see absolutely no "ownage" here.  I see people making excuses, because reality may just be too hard to face.

How ironic you say this when instead of actually having a dialogue with the responders on this thread instead you have chosen for page after page and day after day to construct straw-man fallacy after straw-man fallacy which of course are easy for you to knock down, but alas, you've not even grazed a a single response with any substance nor heard any of what we've been trying to discuss with you.  Who is really having a hard time facing what reality here?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #163 on: July 17, 2011, 06:33:02 PM »

So if you go back to the Greek are you saying Christ said to not call any man "Despota" and you do it?

If you go back to the Greek, you'll see that Christ does not say to not call any man despota, He says to not call people kathegetai. We call our bishops despota, we do not call them kathegetai. Got it?

Quote
http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/Divine_Liturgy/3.Opening.htm  In the last few lines on this link, "Master means Despota".

Do not call any man "master" which is "Despota" in Greek?  I'm not understanding your point?

Do not call any man 'kathegetai', which is not the same as 'despota'. Can you understand this?
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #164 on: July 17, 2011, 07:27:31 PM »

I think I have a duty to terminate a discussion after it has run its course. I think it has been established without any doubt whatsoever that the OP will not be satisfied with any rational explanation or answers to his questions. It is equally clear that the entire range of explanations have been offered; alas, to no avail. Folks, this is becoming a vanity item for the OP and I am considering closing this thread in three days hence. Thanks, Second Chance
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #165 on: July 18, 2011, 12:04:47 PM »

This thread is the best example of unmitigated, unequivocal and absolute theological pwnage I've yet seen on this board.

Good work, dudes.

They have been pretty good, haven't they (I don't include myself here, as I really have not contributed to this conversation and my understanding of theology is no where near on par with the other gentlemen on this board). But I do agree that this thread has been pretty good, perhaps its all the practice everybody got during the past months dealing with Alfred, TtC, and others.

I really don't see it.  I mean its fun to pat yourself on the back when others think you did a good job.

All that was posted are examples of where apostles disobeyed Christ. ?


Perhaps you should actually read my posts to see what I am saying. First of all, I was not patting myself on the back as I clearly stated I did not include myself with what akimori makoto said. Second, in my other post you clearly miss the point I was trying to make, which was...

Yeshuaisiam, you are outside of the Church, even if you were at one point part of the Church. The Arians and Nestorians were once part of the Church, but their own personal interpretaions led them astray, they did not follow the teachings of the Apostles or the Tradition of the Church. The Tradition is not something to be taken lightly, nor is the authority of the Apostle Paul, who many Church Fathers revere, early Fathers such as St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp who were both diciples of St. John.

Even disciples of the Apostle John - the disciple whom Jesus loved - admitted that St. Paul had authority!

Yes, there are divisions in the Church, but there are divisions because some men decided that they knew better than the Apostles who were appointed by Jesus Himself. That there are divisions doesn't mean that we are not the true Church, just that we are all human and prone to err. By your logic the anabaptists can not be correct since there are divisions in their church. Divisions only mean that we are human and do not submit ourselves fully to God's will, they should teach us to stop relying on our own intuitions and rely on God through the instistution He gave to us - the Church - through which we may learn to subdue our passions and reach full union with God.


... three fold. 1) being that just because you were in the Church does not mean that you can rightly criticize the Church as even the Arians and Nestorians were once part of the Church and yet they were led to heresy by their own interpretations as a warning for you not to fall into heresy with your proclomations. 2) being that even disciples of St. John the Apostle say that we should listen to Paul...

Quote from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians
Quote

These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything
upon myself, but because ye have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one,
can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you,
accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive.
And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to
be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being
followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, "is the
mother of us all."

Quote from St. Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians
Quote
I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person. For though I am bound for His
name, I am not yet perfect in Jesus Christ. For now I begin to be a disciple, and I speak to you
as my fellow-servants. For it was needful for me to have been admonished by you in faith,
exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in
regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that ye would run together in
accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ does all things according to the will of
the Father, as He Himself declares in a certain place, "I do always those things that please
Him."Wherefore it behoves us also to live according to the will of God in Christ, and to imitate
Him as Paul did. For, says he, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."

ibid
Quote
Since also "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." Such, then, are ye, having been taught by such instructors, Paul the Christ-bearer, and Timothy the most faithful.
... so don't just automatically throw everything Paul (or Luke for being Paul's disciple) out the window - disciples of the other Apostles very obviously think Paul has some merit. And 3) divisions do not mean the lack of the true Church, just that we as men should learn to lean on Christ and the Apostles of His that He set up to run His Church, instead of our own understanding.

Quote from Proverbs 3:5 KJV
Quote
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

 The Anabaptist may not claim to be the one true church, but they sure do act like it, what with shunning and excommunication, also expecting to their children to marry other Anabaptists.

They have plenty of schisms such as Mennonites and the Amish which vary by belief and also

Quote from Wikipedia
Quote

In Poland and the Netherlands, certain of the Anabaptists denied the Trinity, hence the saying that a Socinian was a learned Baptist (see Socinus.) With these Menno and his followers refused to hold communion. Italian Anabaptism had an anti-trinitarian core but was a part of Anabaptism in general. In his work, Stella showed that movements' connections to Neapolitan spiritualism, (especially Juan de Valdés), but also made the connection to the Marranos as well.

Seems like a schism over dogma to me.

If I were to leave an Anabaptist church for a Baptist, or Methodist church they would still see me as being outside of the church and I would be excommunicated and shunned. They may not vocally claim to be the one true church but their actions do speak that they think they are.


If I can define the Anabaptists without speaking for them, they are a group of Christians that basically say "We are not protestant, we are not catholic, we follow the teachings of our early Christian brethren".   


Sounds a lot like plenty of other Protestant groups...

Basically they don't care about "the one true church", they care about following Christ as the early Christians and to leave all the fluff behind.

Yes they care so much about following Christ as the early Christians did that if you do not believe the way they do you are wrong. Also, they left all that fluff behind as is evidenced by how they would even go so far as to re-baptize anybody they felt did not have a true Christian initiation - hence the name Anabaptist, literally meaning those who re-baptize - this includes those Protestants who practiced infant baptism and even converts from the RCC.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how you can seriously make the claims you do, about the EO, the Anabaptist, and even St. Paul. You sound a lot like those people who think that the early Christians didn't even believe Jesus was God until Paul came in and started changing the whole religion.

First things first, this is about EO, not Anabaptist.

Second things second, your argument is sort of redundant.  To you the only people who have the right to criticize the Eastern Orthodox worship practices are the Eastern Orthodox themselves, yet you are being critical of the Anabaptists?  Kind of dealing in with hypocrisy here aren't you?  I can be as critical as I want of the Eastern Orthodox church as I have vast experience with it, in it, and was part of it.  I don't have to be an insider currently to understand what the church is.

Also, Anabaptist is not the agenda here.  The topic is about EO Christians calling priests, Father, bishops Master.  This is disobeying God who said not to do it. 

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #166 on: July 18, 2011, 05:18:25 PM »

I speak with my bishop in Greek, so I've never called him 'Master'. However, if I were to address him with the English word 'Master', I would not be using the word prohibited in the Gospel - in this context being a translation of the word 'despota' - but you've repeatedly chosen to ignore this, so until you respond to my actual argument I'll let the matter rest.

Good point!

klēthēte kathēgētai eis kathēgētēs christos, it says in Greek. I don't see despota anywhere in that sentence. (But I do see that Christ was an accomplished alliterist.)

Actually I see this as a bad point.  Unless the author says that OCA Orthodox Christians are not Eastern Orthodox.   They certainly call their bishops "MASTER".

So if one of King James' translators had decided to translate "Kathegetai" as "Lord" (a homonym), it would suddenly be okay in your mind to call bishops "Master"? Come on.

The Bible is certainly useful in any language, but if we're going to get into the nitty gritty of individual words like this, we go back to the original language. That is how exegesis works.

Just because we translate "Despota" and "Kathegetai" as "Master" does not mean they are both the same thing. It means English has no useful distinct word to represent the difference. This is the reality of translation. This is why it is lunacy to base one's fine dogma about specific words on translations.

You're being just as silly as Alfred was a few months ago when we were arguing about "word" versus "Word". This is what Protestants have to do when they reject Holy Tradition: they scrape their beliefs out of the dirt and out of word books. Give me the Holy Spirit any day.

They mean the same thing, I can post Orthodox links on it.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #167 on: July 18, 2011, 05:18:26 PM »

Do not call any man "Rabbi, Father, Master"

The Scriptures are meaningless when interpreted outside its context, that being the Church. The Church says it does not mean what you think it means.

I try to serve God in my life.   Don't mistake the fact that I'm saying a few things against the practices of Eastern Orthodox church that I am a sudden enemy of God.

I don't know if you're an enemy of God or not. I can't see your heart. But Saul didn't think he was God's enemy when he was rejecting Church dogma.

This sounds like a cult leader. 

I hate to break it to you, but Nicea was in 325 A.D.   There wasn't an entire "set structure" of the church in entirety before that.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #168 on: July 18, 2011, 05:18:26 PM »

I seek Orthodox Christianity.  I seek the right way (by definition).
You think you're going to find it, though, when you're the one setting all the rules regarding what IS Orthodox? You don't want orthodoxy; you want a Christianity that fits the image you've already made. That, my friend, is probably a much worse graven image than any icon we can make.

BTW, you still haven't engaged any of the counter-arguments against your position. Ridiculing them often enough isn't going to make them ridiculous.

So you'd rather trust someone that defines Orthodoxy like a "saint" who had a son who slept with his on mom?  Then the saint put his own son & wife to death?  I mean can somebody say "Jerry Springer on steroids"?

Gee stinks that I go off my own intuition being a loyal husband and a parent to 5 children.  :OP
Dodging the rebuttal with such a gross reductio ad absurdum is no way to engage a rebuttal of your position.

How about, for instance, my argument that rejection of the teaching of the Apostle Paul is rejection of Christ Himself?

How about my argument about when did God say that rejecting anything of the Apostle Paul was rejecting Christ?
Perhaps we should follow Paul's lead at first and start murdering Christians?
Face it, that's made up nonsense.

Yeshua never gave Paul that type of authority, of course, unless written by Paul.
It's actually quite simple. Jesus made Peter the chief of the Apostles, and Peter recognized Paul as a fellow Apostle, even in his own epistles.

Well this argument strays from my point.  If you want to start a new thread on it, ask who wrote that history.   Luke wrote acts.  Luke was who's disciple?  Bingo, Paul's.
Nice dodge, but in the end, my defense of Paul's apostleship is central to this debate.
1.  You assert that Jesus told us to call no man "father" or "master".
2.  Others here have pointed out how St. Paul taught otherwise.
3.  You dismiss St. Paul by...
     a.  Pointing out how he persecuted Christians (never mind that he did so BEFORE he repented and actually became a Christian)
     b.  Pointing out how St. Paul apparently contradicted Jesus
     c.  Essentially, by denying his apostleship
4.  I assert that you cannot dismiss St. Paul because he was recognized as a bona fide Apostle by no less than the other Apostles.

Now you try to dismiss the writings of St. Luke (his Gospel and his Acts of the Apostles) because he was a disciple of St. Paul, but if St. Paul cannot be dismissed from this argument because of his recognition by the other Apostles, neither can you dismiss St. Luke. In fact, St. Luke is probably the best refutation of your argument since he did so much to present a detailed historical account of Jesus' life and ministry and later of the works of the Apostles that he can't be considered merely a disciple of St. Paul. Through his thorough, investigative, and objective account, St. Luke does an outstanding job of showing us how St. Paul taught exactly what St. Peter and the other eleven of Christ's disciples taught.

BTW, you overlooked my point that St. Peter wrote in his own epistles a recognition of St. Paul's apostolic teaching, putting Paul's epistles on the same pedestal as the rest of Scripture. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

1.  I assert?  Did he or did he not tell you to call no man Father, Rabbi, or Master?
2.  Paul did not teach you to call other men Father.  I'd like to see the scripture where he said to start calling men Father or Master.
3.  I don't dismiss Paul.  I merely point out that Paul was not sinless, and he was making mistakes when he or any other early Christians said "Father", because God told him not to do it.  "Call no man Father". 
     a. He did sin.  He murdered Christians.  Somebody questioned why my judgments could have been better than Pauls.  I merely stated that I've never murdered anybody, Christians or otherwise.  I'm a loyal husband and have 5 children.   Paul killed Christians, I didn't.   Does this make him wrong entirely, absolutely not.   I bring up the point merely when people talk about how "unworthy" my judgments are, and how great Paul's are. 
     b. "Call no man father" - God    he contradicted Yeshua.
     c.  Essentially?  He's a brother, a brethren.
     d.  He was an apostle in a book written by Luke, Paul's disciple.   Does that mean he wasn't - I don't know.  It raises eyebrows.

I'm not dismissing the writings of Luke.  I'm saying Luke's book contradicts Mark and Matthew on the subjects of the thieves on the cross.   If there was one error in Luke of such a nature, one that people believe in death bed salvation and the EO cross is arguably symbolic of, then there can be other errors in Luke's writings.  Acts for instance.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #169 on: July 18, 2011, 05:18:26 PM »

But
Apostles + Early church brethren + 2000 years of history + the Earth + the Galaxy + anything <<<< to the infinite <<<<< than GOD

GOD said "Do NOT call any man Father, Rabbi, or Master".

The apostles were mere men, and they by far had no perfect life or sinless life.  Peter denied Christ.  Paul murdered Christians at first.   But we have no example of Matthew who recorded that saying "father, master, or Rabbi".
But Jesus never wrote anything that got passed on to posterity. We would therefore have no record of Jesus saying "call no man father" if one of His Apostles had never written it down. We do know that much of what Jesus said wasn't recorded in the Gospels, so why did St. Matthew record the "call no man father" statement yet not record other things Jesus said? If you argue that Matthew recorded this command because he realized its importance, then you essentially admit that you follow this command because of St. Matthew's authority. Why, then, do you not follow the equal authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul? OTOH, if St. Matthew had NOT recorded Christ's "call no man father" command, we would likely have never known of it, and you wouldn't be advocating such strict obedience to this command today.

Therefore, everything in your argument depends on how you relate to the authority of the Apostle Matthew as opposed to the authority of the other Apostles. You're picking and choosing which of those Apostles you will obey and which you will not obey. THAT, my friend, is the very definition of heresy.

Okay, you are seeing what I am saying wrong, and honestly it kind of gets away from the point of the thread.

Let me first state that you agree that Matthew recorded Christ's word of "call no man father".  This is a command from God.

Secondly, let's take the 4 synoptic gospels.
1. Matthew - chosen by Christ
2. Mark - chosen by Christ
3. John - chosen by Christ
4. Luke - a disciple of Paul.

There is a difference.

Now consider the books Luke authored (in context to what we are talking about).
1. Luke
2. Acts

Which book errs (or is different) on the story of the thieves next to our savior on the cross? 
1. Luke

So which apostles do I "trust" more?  The ones Luke wrote "are now apostles", or the ones that God actually chose?

However, you are taking this way way way way out of context to what I am saying anyway.   It's not that I don't trust Luke or Paul, its that I believe their books are not as accurate, complete, or absolute in comparison by EXTREMELY small degrees.   HOWEVER -

1. Paul did NOT tell people to CALL him Father
2. Paul may have not read Matthew, nor understood this command, either way, he did what God told him not to do.

ALSO

Despite what Paul may have done, God directly told people as recorded through his chosen apostle Matthew - "Call no man Father or Master".

The EO call their priests "Father" and bishops "Master".
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #170 on: July 18, 2011, 05:18:27 PM »

This thread is the best example of unmitigated, unequivocal and absolute theological pwnage I've yet seen on this board.

Good work, dudes.

Just one other thing.

I've posted a photo of several clergy bowing down before an image made in the likeness of things in heaven.

It's very simple and CLEAR to see that.  They are all in a semi-circle BOWING to an IMAGE of a LIKENESS of things in heaven.

That's direct disobedience.    Even if the image "represents" the person, its still an image.   Unless we want to get delusional and start saying that the icon IS the person.

I see absolutely no "ownage" here.  I see people making excuses, because reality may just be too hard to face.

Do you wear clothing spun of two fabrics?

Do you eat pork?

Our Lord said not one iota would pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass away.

How do you cope with these "CLEAR" commandments?

What is "clear"? What is "unclear"? What is metaphorical? What is literal? These are not easy questions that can be answered with the degree of self-assuredness you have displayed in your attempt at exegesis of the passage the subject of this conversation.

You have not addressed a single point which has been put to you but have continued to repeat the same idea as a mantra.

The Lord also forbade vain repetition ...

Do you wear clothing spun of two fabrics?
No.

Do you eat pork?
No.

Our Lord said not one iota would pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass away.

How do you cope with these "CLEAR" commandments?
I obey them.

What is "clear"? What is "unclear"? What is metaphorical? What is literal? These are not easy questions that can be answered with the degree of self-assuredness you have displayed in your attempt at exegesis of the passage the subject of this conversation.

What is clear is the commandments and rules of God.


You have not addressed a single point which has been put to you but have continued to repeat the same idea as a mantra.

The Lord also forbade vain repetition ...

Yes, so the Eastern Orthodox grab a prayer rope that everybody can see, and repeat the "Jesus Prayer" 50 to 100 times - over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over -

There that was 100 times.  Nope, no vain repetition here.   Do the Eastern Orthodox Christians ever wonder if God is deaf or does not listen?    How about say it one time and mean it?
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #171 on: July 18, 2011, 05:18:27 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



I see absolutely no "ownage" here.  I see people making excuses, because reality may just be too hard to face.

How ironic you say this when instead of actually having a dialogue with the responders on this thread instead you have chosen for page after page and day after day to construct straw-man fallacy after straw-man fallacy which of course are easy for you to knock down, but alas, you've not even grazed a a single response with any substance nor heard any of what we've been trying to discuss with you.  Who is really having a hard time facing what reality here?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Is a straw man fallacy the words of God himself?
"Do not call any man Rabbi, Father, or Master".

These words are not a straw man fallacy, these are not words that I have made up or "constructed".  These words were spoken by God, who told you not to do it.   The excuses people gave me are ones of "traditions", "Paul did it", etc.   Excuses, mere excuses.  God said "Do NOT call any man Rabbi, Father, or Master, but call each other Brethren".  Period.

I don't understand the diversion tactics, excuses, and why it is that people can't read the words of God as their superior authority.   

I hate to break it to some of you, but the word of God is infinite in superiority over any apostle, bishop, priest, patriarch, or tradition that you may have.

I posted a photo of priests bowing to an image in the likeness of something in heaven.  What more do I get - excuses as to why they should continue bowing to an image made in the likeness of something in heaven.

After that are character attacks.  Dissonance.  Avoidance of the exact subject at hand.

This is disobedience to the commands that God has given you.  It doesn't matter in what context you try to call a priest "Father" or a bishop "Master", you are still calling these "spiritual leaders" both "Father" and "Master". 

Now what did GOD yes, that's right, not Paul, but GOD, YHWH, who became man tell you to call each other?  Brethren.
Now what did GOD yes, that's right, NOT Paul, but GOD, YHWH, who became man tell you NOT to call ANY man?  Father & Master

What do the Eastern Orthodox call their priests?  Father
What do the Eastern Orthodox call their bishops?  Master

That's called - disobedience to GOD, that's right YHWH who became flesh called Yeshua on Earth.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #172 on: July 18, 2011, 05:18:27 PM »

So if you go back to the Greek are you saying Christ said to not call any man "Despota" and you do it?

If you go back to the Greek, you'll see that Christ does not say to not call any man despota, He says to not call people kathegetai. We call our bishops despota, we do not call them kathegetai. Got it?

Quote
http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/Divine_Liturgy/3.Opening.htm  In the last few lines on this link, "Master means Despota".

Do not call any man "master" which is "Despota" in Greek?  I'm not understanding your point?

Do not call any man 'kathegetai', which is not the same as 'despota'. Can you understand this?

Good than you agree that you do not call him Brethren.  That's disobedience.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #173 on: July 18, 2011, 05:18:27 PM »

I think I have a duty to terminate a discussion after it has run its course. I think it has been established without any doubt whatsoever that the OP will not be satisfied with any rational explanation or answers to his questions. It is equally clear that the entire range of explanations have been offered; alas, to no avail. Folks, this is becoming a vanity item for the OP and I am considering closing this thread in three days hence. Thanks, Second Chance

Second chance, I think this discussion is very valid, as it is from the words of our savior.  Nobody has posted a valid answer, only examples where people were calling men "Father" and disobeying God.

As an example, there are many Christians who feel the same way.  Wouldn't you want people outside of Eastern Orthodoxy to find a legitimate reason to this question?  Look, even sermon writers say the same thing.

http://www.lectionary.org/EXEG-Concise/NT/ConNT01-Matt/Matt%2023.01-12.htm
When you read verses 8-10 and the explanation, it even addresses the Greek "kathegetai".

None of these answers directly answers two questions.

1) Do the Eastern Orthodox disobey God since God said "Call no man Rabbi, Father, or Master?
2) Do the Eastern Orthodox disobey God since they do not always refer to their priests and bishops as "brethren" as God commanded us to?

They have only given excuses "Paul did it so I can do it", "Tradition did it so I can do it", "That doesn't mean "father" it means "father" ", "The Greek says "kathegetai" I say "kathegetai" and I never sing the song in the Bishops presence that ends with "despota" ". 

Please don't close this thread, because it will only prove that the Eastern Orthodox faith is loaded with excuses for complete disobedience.

It's so direct and so simple. ? 
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #174 on: July 18, 2011, 05:33:58 PM »

But
Apostles + Early church brethren + 2000 years of history + the Earth + the Galaxy + anything <<<< to the infinite <<<<< than GOD

GOD said "Do NOT call any man Father, Rabbi, or Master".

The apostles were mere men, and they by far had no perfect life or sinless life.  Peter denied Christ.  Paul murdered Christians at first.   But we have no example of Matthew who recorded that saying "father, master, or Rabbi".
But Jesus never wrote anything that got passed on to posterity. We would therefore have no record of Jesus saying "call no man father" if one of His Apostles had never written it down. We do know that much of what Jesus said wasn't recorded in the Gospels, so why did St. Matthew record the "call no man father" statement yet not record other things Jesus said? If you argue that Matthew recorded this command because he realized its importance, then you essentially admit that you follow this command because of St. Matthew's authority. Why, then, do you not follow the equal authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul? OTOH, if St. Matthew had NOT recorded Christ's "call no man father" command, we would likely have never known of it, and you wouldn't be advocating such strict obedience to this command today.

Therefore, everything in your argument depends on how you relate to the authority of the Apostle Matthew as opposed to the authority of the other Apostles. You're picking and choosing which of those Apostles you will obey and which you will not obey. THAT, my friend, is the very definition of heresy.

Okay, you are seeing what I am saying wrong, and honestly it kind of gets away from the point of the thread.

Let me first state that you agree that Matthew recorded Christ's word of "call no man father".  This is a command from God.

Secondly, let's take the 4 synoptic gospels.
1. Matthew - chosen by Christ
2. Mark - chosen by Christ
3. John - chosen by Christ
4. Luke - a disciple of Paul.

There is a difference.

Now consider the books Luke authored (in context to what we are talking about).
1. Luke
2. Acts

Which book errs (or is different) on the story of the thieves next to our savior on the cross? 
1. Luke

So which apostles do I "trust" more?  The ones Luke wrote "are now apostles", or the ones that God actually chose?

However, you are taking this way way way way out of context to what I am saying anyway.   It's not that I don't trust Luke or Paul, its that I believe their books are not as accurate, complete, or absolute in comparison by EXTREMELY small degrees.   HOWEVER -

1. Paul did NOT tell people to CALL him Father
2. Paul may have not read Matthew, nor understood this command, either way, he did what God told him not to do.

ALSO

Despite what Paul may have done, God directly told people as recorded through his chosen apostle Matthew - "Call no man Father or Master".

The EO call their priests "Father" and bishops "Master".

This reminds me of why I stopped discussing things with Protestants a long time ago.

They'll assert some practice of my church is unBiblical.  When I quote an Old Testament passage to support it, they'll say it doesn't count because it's the Old Testament, and not the New Testament.

If I quote one of Paul's epistles, they'll say it doesn't count because it's an epistle and not the Gospel.  When I quote the Gospel of John, they'll say it doesn't count because it's not one of the synoptic Gospels.  When I quote one of the Synoptics, they'll say it doesn't count because it's not in the Gospel of John.  When I cite something that is in all four Gospels, they'll say it doesn't count because it isn't in one of Paul's Epistles.

I've experienced the above so many times, I've just given up.  And here we have it being done again by one of our posters here on OCnet.

Whatever.  In my Church, the entire Bible is considered the Breath of God.  We respect all of it.  We don't point to parts we disagree with and say those parts are wrong.  We don't put ourselves above the Apostles and judge them.

This is one of many reasons I just can't take Protestants, Evangelicals, or whatever, seriously.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #175 on: July 18, 2011, 05:39:11 PM »

This sounds like a cult leader.

Yes. The cult of Jesus Christ, AKA the Orthodox Church. Smiley

 
I hate to break it to you, but Nicea was in 325 A.D.   There wasn't an entire "set structure" of the church in entirety before that.

How did the Church Fathers and Masters all decide to come together to hold the Council of Nicaea, then, I wonder? Smiley

So, yes there was a set structure. See the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Apostolic Fathers for notes.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 05:52:38 PM by bogdan » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #176 on: July 18, 2011, 05:43:36 PM »

They mean the same thing, I can post Orthodox links on it.

The song we sing to our bishops goes "Eis polla eti, Despota", not "Eis polla eti, Kathegetai."  I've sung it myself a number of times.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 05:44:46 PM by bogdan » Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #177 on: July 18, 2011, 05:56:15 PM »

Good than you agree that you do not call him Brethren.  That's disobedience.

It doesn't command us to call them brethren. However, it might make you happy to know that bishops and priests normally begin all sermons with 'My beloved brethren'  Smiley
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #178 on: July 18, 2011, 06:01:21 PM »

They mean the same thing, I can post Orthodox links on it.

The song we sing to our bishops goes "Eis polla eti, Despota", not "Eis polla eti, Kathegetai."  I've sung it myself a number of times.

Ironic that someone who insists on saying Yeshua rather than Jesus would ignore the original text and base his argument on the English translation of the KJV. I'm trying to decide whether I should follow verse 4 or verse 5 of Proverbs 26.
Logged
Cephas
There is no spoon.
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: See of St. Mark
Posts: 288

γνῶθισε αυτόν


« Reply #179 on: July 18, 2011, 06:07:46 PM »

+ Irini nem ehmot,

St. Augustine said it best about people like this: If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.
Logged

Cephas 

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed."
-- Isaiah 53:5

"He who knows himself knows God"
-- Pi Nishti Abba Antony
Tags: priests Protestant Christianity 
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 0.214 seconds with 72 queries.