OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 08:39:33 AM *
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 CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: is there any church father or early Christian saying that 'I believe in bible'?  (Read 2716 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #90 on: April 04, 2013, 01:55:57 PM »

Eh, I've had my say on the subject.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #91 on: April 04, 2013, 02:17:57 PM »

Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  Roll Eyes .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 02:27:09 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #92 on: April 04, 2013, 03:10:53 PM »

My point is that I was not Orthodox when I did the study.

I don't think Protestants are really more distant from Orthodox than Rome or Non-Chalcedoneans, at least not the traditional ones.

The "proximity" of the Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome to Orthodoxy is basically aesthetical in that they all have Liturgies, hierarchy, traditional hymns.

And this perception of proximity is also culturally biased. Here in Brazil, traditionally a Roman country, the "progressist" thing to think is that Rome and Orthodoxy are almost the same, we are not like those Protestants or those Orientals, no-no-no, no way. I wouldn't be surprise that this feeling has even gotten stronger in Argentina lately.

Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

I, particularly, see much piety in many Protestants and a lot of lay asceticism in their behaviour,  and simplicity in their temples and in that they are much closer to Orthodoxy than some festive liturgical Romans or ethnically grounded Non-Chalcedoneans. Now, of course, I say this because the Orthodox Churches here are rather welcoming of non-ethnics and I know fom the Internet that it is more closed elsewhere. So, as I said, this feeling of "proximity" is more related to the personal experience of groups and invidividuals than anything else.


Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  Roll Eyes .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 03:15:43 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #93 on: April 04, 2013, 03:15:04 PM »

Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

You are departing from both the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as common sense.

I'd leave this line of thought alone.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #94 on: April 04, 2013, 03:31:16 PM »

We are all heretics in relation to each other. That's the fact. Where do the Fathers say that heretics worship the same God?

Now, said cultural constraints, globalist ethics, political correctness or even their best hopes have made some Orthodox and Romans think they are the closest thing there is this side of the eschaton. Here in this forum and I see in some American sites, the "intelligent" thing to adopt is the idea that Orthodox and Non-Chalcedoneans are the real true buddies. Converts from Rome and Protestantism, on the other hand never cease to commend how Orthodoxy is just a natural continuity of their former experience, so close they are.

What this spells to me is that the four "branches" of Christianity all have points where they come together and where they deviate from each other and that is what is factual and historical about them, each claiming to be the Church of Christ and considering the others to be heretics. Sometimes being a "heretic" meant simply "you are wrong about this" sometimes it meant "I have a license to kill you". From all four. And locally and temporally limited experiences give a bias to the perception of some people in terms to whom they are closer. Usually two get together to bash one of the remaining two. There is a fifth branch in the making, which basically bashes all the previous four, claiming that"all this is relative, let's just put our differences aside and be social and political and charitable", the "Ecumenic Christianity". If it will stay as transversal "spirituality" contaminating all churches or if it will chrystalize into a new formal church with defectors from all the previous four joining it as the "true" expression of their former groups, it remains to be seen.

But being, "traditional" and considering that we are heretics in relation to each other, where do the Fathers say heretics worship the same God as Orthodox (considering "orthodox" your own church?)


Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

You are departing from both the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as common sense.

I'd leave this line of thought alone.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 03:33:17 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #95 on: April 04, 2013, 04:34:54 PM »

My point is that I was not Orthodox when I did the study.

I don't think Protestants are really more distant from Orthodox than Rome or Non-Chalcedoneans, at least not the traditional ones.

The "proximity" of the Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome to Orthodoxy is basically aesthetical in that they all have Liturgies, hierarchy, traditional hymns.

And this perception of proximity is also culturally biased. Here in Brazil, traditionally a Roman country, the "progressist" thing to think is that Rome and Orthodoxy are almost the same, we are not like those Protestants or those Orientals, no-no-no, no way. I wouldn't be surprise that this feeling has even gotten stronger in Argentina lately.

Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

I, particularly, see much piety in many Protestants and a lot of lay asceticism in their behaviour,  and simplicity in their temples and in that they are much closer to Orthodoxy than some festive liturgical Romans or ethnically grounded Non-Chalcedoneans. Now, of course, I say this because the Orthodox Churches here are rather welcoming of non-ethnics and I know fom the Internet that it is more closed elsewhere. So, as I said, this feeling of "proximity" is more related to the personal experience of groups and invidividuals than anything else.


Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  Roll Eyes .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".

Well, Fabio, this is your chance.  Prove to me that you and I worship different gods.  Start another thread about this, and prove it.

As far as I've seen, your claims are nothing but disproven fluff.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 04:35:36 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #96 on: April 04, 2013, 04:56:28 PM »

See above.



My point is that I was not Orthodox when I did the study.

I don't think Protestants are really more distant from Orthodox than Rome or Non-Chalcedoneans, at least not the traditional ones.

The "proximity" of the Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome to Orthodoxy is basically aesthetical in that they all have Liturgies, hierarchy, traditional hymns.

And this perception of proximity is also culturally biased. Here in Brazil, traditionally a Roman country, the "progressist" thing to think is that Rome and Orthodoxy are almost the same, we are not like those Protestants or those Orientals, no-no-no, no way. I wouldn't be surprise that this feeling has even gotten stronger in Argentina lately.

Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

I, particularly, see much piety in many Protestants and a lot of lay asceticism in their behaviour,  and simplicity in their temples and in that they are much closer to Orthodoxy than some festive liturgical Romans or ethnically grounded Non-Chalcedoneans. Now, of course, I say this because the Orthodox Churches here are rather welcoming of non-ethnics and I know fom the Internet that it is more closed elsewhere. So, as I said, this feeling of "proximity" is more related to the personal experience of groups and invidividuals than anything else.


Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  Roll Eyes .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".

Well, Fabio, this is your chance.  Prove to me that you and I worship different gods.  Start another thread about this, and prove it.

As far as I've seen, your claims are nothing but disproven fluff.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 04:58:22 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #97 on: April 04, 2013, 05:20:44 PM »

Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  Roll Eyes .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".

hehehe Mina,Excellent point, so very aptly made Smiley  I find Fabio's  "the  Myths and Fables of Byzantium on steroid" approach as a solid reminder of why caesaropapisim remains at the very heart of the entire experience of those that oppose it as well as those who propagate it.even now the edict keeps coming, and at the heart of it remains the same blatant and arrogant lie.(when I encounter such arrogance which attempts to tell me my Faith is not what I openly declare  to be my Faith , then I say: I do not believe what I believe  to please or displease you, but because I believe it to be True. and in that Faith in that Truth I cast the fate of my very Soul, so what makes you think you can get me to deny it or hide it, when I am willing to give my life for it?) the fabricated lie had a lot of imperial and papal power and the pretext used worked only in so far as it killed not convince.  now what it can not do anymore is unleash the carnage it was able to before. and if we have held on to our Orthodox Faith in the face of assured slaughter, stripped of its lance, mere fable will only hurt those who continue to tell it.

  
 anyway the different God argument is so hilarious in its shamelessness lol I was entertained by it.
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #98 on: April 04, 2013, 08:21:19 PM »

See above.



My point is that I was not Orthodox when I did the study.

I don't think Protestants are really more distant from Orthodox than Rome or Non-Chalcedoneans, at least not the traditional ones.

The "proximity" of the Non-Chalcedoneans and Rome to Orthodoxy is basically aesthetical in that they all have Liturgies, hierarchy, traditional hymns.

And this perception of proximity is also culturally biased. Here in Brazil, traditionally a Roman country, the "progressist" thing to think is that Rome and Orthodoxy are almost the same, we are not like those Protestants or those Orientals, no-no-no, no way. I wouldn't be surprise that this feeling has even gotten stronger in Argentina lately.

Truth is that Orthodoxy, Non-Chalcedonians, Rome and Protestantism are four different religions. We don't worship the same God, the same Jesus, although we use the same words. And this sense of one being closer to the other is more conditioned by local alliances and local history than anything else. People are socially closer in certain places and then they simply wish doctrinal and historical differences were non-existant.

I, particularly, see much piety in many Protestants and a lot of lay asceticism in their behaviour,  and simplicity in their temples and in that they are much closer to Orthodoxy than some festive liturgical Romans or ethnically grounded Non-Chalcedoneans. Now, of course, I say this because the Orthodox Churches here are rather welcoming of non-ethnics and I know fom the Internet that it is more closed elsewhere. So, as I said, this feeling of "proximity" is more related to the personal experience of groups and invidividuals than anything else.


Rather than talk about EO, OO, and Catholic differences, I wanted to concentrate more on how Protestantism is a far distance from these Apostolic traditions, because when you get to the whole depth of the issue between our churches, we actually have a lot more in common that what divides us.

It's very easy for me to claim, that when I read history, I am convinced of the principles the Oriental Orthodox Church went through in standing against the "sociological ruptures" of the overbearing Roman empire via Byzantine Caesaropapism/Latin Papism  Roll Eyes .  But let's not play these games here.  No church is without her historical "baggage".

Well, Fabio, this is your chance.  Prove to me that you and I worship different gods.  Start another thread about this, and prove it.

As far as I've seen, your claims are nothing but disproven fluff.

You said nothing "above".  Thus far, you've proven nothing but empty words.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 08:21:37 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


« Reply #99 on: April 08, 2013, 12:20:55 PM »

It's interesting that everyone of the Church fathers also believe in Tradition, the Councils, the ordained Priesthood, etc.

Like Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception? What council's? Rome has had many the Eastern churches reject. Who's tradition?  RC, OO, EO, Assyrian, other churches that broke away from these over corruption like selling salvation and Inquisitions?

I think Saint John Chrysostom put it best when he stated:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
What good does it do, however, to merely "believe the Scriptures" when by merely "believing the Scriptures", you Protestants have splintered into numerous different sects?

Salvation? There are now 2.2 Billion Christians in the world, that is good. Over 600,000,000 of them Protestants, 1.1 Billion Catholics and 300,000,000 Orthodox.

One Faith - In Christ Jesus
One Baptism - with the Holy Spirit
One God - the Creator

If all those good people who attend their local church, believe in God the creator, believe in Christ their savior, believe in the power of the Holy Spirit and do good works (whether as a fruit of faith or requirement).  I sincerely hope God does not punish us/them to eternal hell for not understanding perfect theology.

Protestants didn't start the separations of the church, that was you guys with all your excommunications of each other making it impossible to know the truth of who's right, if anyone is.

Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic did not believe in and preach the same gospel. And I am sure that two of them are the false gospel.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 12:22:23 PM by walter1234 » Logged
Kra-nion
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: 'Old Faith Orthodox' { in catholic communion }
Jurisdiction: ;those to whom Sts. Cyril & Methodius went;
Posts: 16


« Reply #100 on: May 14, 2013, 12:18:05 AM »

#.........do you know what antiFaith is..what the false belief is.......john chap.5 ..christ tells the christ killers what they think!.....  christ killers impute life to the scriptures...............orthodox know' 'it's the spirit that gives life'..........john chap.6.............../......to believe book is god?......not true.     god is not book and book is not god. ...............think ,...bible canonized year 393.....so .no one individual person had what we have today till all the loose paperwork was assembled.......even then they had to remove the junk- .......................*# remember;old testament plus bible = holy scripture......new testament = consecrated cup of the lord's blood.........so if you call book word jn1;1 ,you void eucharist in your wittiness
Logged
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #101 on: May 14, 2013, 08:10:27 AM »

Uhhh, what?  Huh
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
adampjr
Karamazov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catachumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 84


Penguin


« Reply #102 on: May 14, 2013, 08:30:34 AM »

Do you mean like Sola Scriptura protestants does today?

Yes. Believe in bible but do not believe in the Church

No. That would have been impossible, since at the time they were largely inseparable.
But, despite many things Protestants might not like about the Church Fathers, a staunch devotion to the authority of Scriptures is there. But, of course, not outside of the context (the Church).
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #103 on: May 14, 2013, 01:30:18 PM »

#.........do you know what antiFaith is..what the false belief is.......john chap.5 ..christ tells the christ killers what they think!.....  christ killers impute life to the scriptures...............orthodox know' 'it's the spirit that gives life'..........john chap.6.............../......to believe book is god?......not true.     god is not book and book is not god. ...............think ,...bible canonized year 393.....so .no one individual person had what we have today till all the loose paperwork was assembled.......even then they had to remove the junk- .......................*# remember;old testament plus bible = holy scripture......new testament = consecrated cup of the lord's blood.........so if you call book word jn1;1 ,you void eucharist in your wittiness

On the right side of your keyboard, there is an "Enter" button. In other keyboards, it may be called "Return".  Use it rather than "............"
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  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 0.083 seconds with 43 queries.